Comments on: Three-layered shell of deep-sea snail could inspire next-gen body armour

By: best pheromones

best pheromones — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:13:45 +0000

Well only religious idiots wouldn’t believe Darwin. Even God believes in Darwin.

By: TEAcher

TEAcher — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:55:31 +0000

Another Darwinian triumph. I think this is exactly what Darwin noticed with the parallelism of environment and the development of features to adapt to it.

By: Glee

Glee — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:05:16 +0000

This just prove Darwin correct again on the survival of the fittest natural selection dogma.

By: Reviewer 3

Reviewer 3 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:53:09 +0000

Do the snails repair their shell after being attacked? If they did, studying the repair mechanism might provide some pretty interesting insights.
If they don’t, is that because they don’t get attacked often? I’d assume that a snail with a weakened shell would be pretty vulnerable, even if it did survive the initial attack.

By: Michael Meadon

Michael Meadon — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:36:58 +0000

Great post.
Small point, Ed. You say: “But evolution can take all of those factors into account without the guiding hand of a designer, putting thousands of structures through the test of natural selection and weeding out the best combinations.” I think you might mean, either, ‘ferreting out’ or ‘weeding out weak combinations, and retaining the best ones’.

By: Mike from Ottawa

Mike from Ottawa — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:07:20 +0000

Its shell is a composite, made of three layers, each with different properties and made of different minerals. Together, they form a structure that’s completely unlike any known armour, whether natural or man-made.

If the uniqueness is in the use of different layers with very different properties rather than the exact materials used, then this isn’t really unique. Modern tank armour has made use of similar layering using various different steels, ceramics, dead space, depleted uranium slabs and polymers (like Kevlar spall linings) for the last 30 years or so. Most modern tank armours are of layered construction. The processes they inflict on penetrators are similar to what’s described above (the outer iron sulphide later sounds like it works like the ceramics in modern armours, including some body armours). And with all due respect to the gastropod, a crab claw is not a 10kg tungsten bolt travelling a kilometre and a half per second. Not to say there’s nought to be learned from Mother Nature here, but it does seem they’re being a bit excitable.
Now, has anyone put that Crysomalion squamiferum up against a hungry Odontodactylus scyllarus for a real test?

By: Thomas Barton, JD

Thomas Barton, JD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:36:17 +0000

The improvements in body armor from this research do not address momentum-transfer trauma caused by stopping the heavier, more energetic round. the Marine or soldier who is struck may survive on the battlefield but then must endure unknown physical effects for years and the all too well-known psychological trauma. Also any moderate advance in body armor will not defeat any round that will be introduced that utilizes enhanced incendiary/reactive chemical components. In fact this may well spur the introduction of these component based rounds into general infantry use. This would be counterproductive and increase suffering even beyond the use of Willy Pete white phosphorus.

By: Ericg

Ericg — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:16:55 +0000

can we conceive of shells for laptops or impact zones for cars/trains/planes from this information, or are we simply relegated to killing people with it *because* that is a foreseeable option? rock on, good article.

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:27:40 +0000

Great post….and i’ll have to check that biomimetics book.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:39:15 +0000

Re: Comment 1 – there’s a pervasive belief that any research that is funded by or used by the military is inherently evil. The line of thought for armor goes: “If US soldiers get better body armor, then they are a more effective fighting force and so the government will be more likely to use them, leading to more war. Therefore any aid to military = more war = evil.
Call me crazy, but I think of research that reduces death and promotes health to be a good thing, regardless of who is helped by it.