Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

You might not have any trees without Mycelium fungi that convert nutrients into plant food, or even fungi generally. Phytoplankton and zooplankton would be difficult too. All the tasks done by microbes including our gut flora could not be done artificially.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

You might not have any trees without Mycelium fungi that convert nutrients into plant food, or even fungi generally. Phytoplankton and zooplankton would be difficult too. All the tasks done by microbes including our gut flora could not be done artificially.

Symbiosis. Trees are nature’s megaopolis.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

You might not have any trees without Mycelium fungi that convert nutrients into plant food, or even fungi generally. Phytoplankton and zooplankton would be difficult too. All the tasks done by microbes including our gut flora could not be done artificially.

Good point

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

You might not have any trees without Mycelium fungi that convert nutrients into plant food, or even fungi generally. Phytoplankton and zooplankton would be difficult too. All the tasks done by microbes including our gut flora could not be done artificially.

Symbiosis. Trees are nature’s megaopolis.

At it does show how undervalued they are

not sure much of nature is efficient (considered broadly) it’s creative though with accidents, accidentally creates, happens upon structure, replicators

it took 100 billion people just to get 7.7billion, and consider the input to get you, an example specimen, or me

and keeping the lights on for the 7.7billion people lots of things had to live and die, you put the stuff in the fuel tank of your car

I guess the entire earth system that captures energy and converts it could be considered quite efficient, not sure.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

You might not have any trees without Mycelium fungi that convert nutrients into plant food, or even fungi generally. Phytoplankton and zooplankton would be difficult too. All the tasks done by microbes including our gut flora could not be done artificially.

Symbiosis. Trees are nature’s megaopolis.

At it does show how undervalued they are

Not something I’ve ever done.
I’ve learned more science from trees than I ever learned from books. Though the books did help.
I found from books that I was not the only one who may liken a tree to a city. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bes2.1443

transition said:

not sure much of nature is efficient (considered broadly) it’s creative though with accidents, accidentally creates, happens upon structure, replicators

it took 100 billion people just to get 7.7billion, and consider the input to get you, an example specimen, or me

and keeping the lights on for the 7.7billion people lots of things had to live and die, you put the stuff in the fuel tank of your car

I guess the entire earth system that captures energy and converts it could be considered quite efficient, not sure.

You can also apply that to: It took 100 billion people to bring you the technology you have now.

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.

In all kindness, I don’t think this analysis makes sense.

dv said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.

In all kindness, I don’t think this analysis makes sense.

If you wanted to design a power source that lasted for a long time and was self sustaining could you do a better job than how stars do it, or would you come to the conclusion stars are the way to go. We are trying with fusion reactors and perhaps one day they will work but you still need to continually feed them with outside material

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.

In all kindness, I don’t think this analysis makes sense.

If you wanted to design a power source that lasted for a long time and was self sustaining could you do a better job than how stars do it, or would you come to the conclusion stars are the way to go. We are trying with fusion reactors and perhaps one day they will work but you still need to continually feed them with outside material

But that’s not what “efficiency” means. It doesn’t mean “lasting a long time”. And stars are not self-sustaining: they consume fuel.

A star is a long lasting event in which hydrogen (and, later, other elements) undergo nuclear reactions and emit radiationm but the fact that they go for a long time isn’t a sign of efficiency. You might as well say that the moon rotating about the earth is efficient because that will continue for billions of years.

Efficiency, formally, is a ratio, a percentage, of input to useful output. Without an end, a goal, or some stated objective or desired state, it doesn’t mean much to talk about efficiency.

To pull an example from human technology, the efficiency of an engine is the ratio of the useful mechanical energy output to the chemical energy input. It might be something like 25% or so for an internal combustion engine.

However, we can consider efficiencies related to non-anthropogenic systems as well as long as we specify some “end”. For instance, if we consider that the “purpose” of photosynthesis is to increase the enthalpy in biomass from sunlight, then a typical plant has an efficiency of around 0.1%. This compares with the efficiency of artificial photosynthesis which is over 20%.

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

dv said:

Efficiency, formally, is a ratio, a percentage, of input to useful output. Without an end, a goal, or some stated objective or desired state, it doesn’t mean much to talk about efficiency.

To pull an example from human technology, the efficiency of an engine is the ratio of the useful mechanical energy output to the chemical energy input. It might be something like 25% or so for an internal combustion engine.

However, we can consider efficiencies related to non-anthropogenic systems as well as long as we specify some “end”. For instance, if we consider that the “purpose” of photosynthesis is to increase the enthalpy in biomass from sunlight, then a typical plant has an efficiency of around 0.1%. This compares with the efficiency of artificial photosynthesis which is over 20%.

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

I did find it hard to think of thread title, nature technology versus human technology perhaps

dv said:

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

to add some sunshine to our day.

dv said:

Efficiency, formally, is a ratio, a percentage, of input to useful output. Without an end, a goal, or some stated objective or desired state, it doesn’t mean much to talk about efficiency.

To pull an example from human technology, the efficiency of an engine is the ratio of the useful mechanical energy output to the chemical energy input. It might be something like 25% or so for an internal combustion engine.

However, we can consider efficiencies related to non-anthropogenic systems as well as long as we specify some “end”. For instance, if we consider that the “purpose” of photosynthesis is to increase the enthalpy in biomass from sunlight, then a typical plant has an efficiency of around 0.1%. This compares with the efficiency of artificial photosynthesis which is over 20%.

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

What about “Energy Output”?

Boris said:

dv said:

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

to add some sunshine to our day.

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

to some extent it must be lossy conversion that drove abiogenesis and evolution, that it’s essential to evolution of complex lifeforms and interdependencies etc

more on the level of simple physics, you could ask how efficient gravity is at communicating mass

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

dv said:

So if we are working out the efficiency of a star, what is the “purpose”?

to add some sunshine to our day.

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

If the purpose of the sun were to add sunshine to humans’ days, then we can estimate the efficiency of the sun as:

% of fuel ultimately consumed x
% of ultimately recoverable nuclear energy attained (for instance, the maximum amount of bond energy retrieved would occur if the entire sun were reacted through to Iron) x
% of radiation that is visible
% of sunlight that strikes the Earth x
% of the sun’s existence that coincides with human existence

So something like

0.3 * 0.15 * 0.42 * 0.0000000004 * 0.0001

= 0.0000000000000008

ie an efficiency of 1 in 1.3 quadrillion

Of course most stars are less efficient that the sun given that much less of their light gets to us

% of the sun’s existence during which humans exist x

The basic methodology that allows all these things to happen is evolution, which given time is very effective, but I don’t think you could call it efficient.

It would be interesting to see how things work out once nature has evolved some self sustaining mechanism (otherwise known as a life form) which is capable of more efficient design methods.

Unfortunately I won’t live that long.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

to add some sunshine to our day.

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

If the purpose of the sun were to add sunshine to humans’ days, then we can estimate the efficiency of the sun as:

% of fuel ultimately consumed x
% of ultimately recoverable nuclear energy attained (for instance, the maximum amount of bond energy retrieved would occur if the entire sun were reacted through to Iron) x
% of radiation that is visible
% of sunlight that strikes the Earth x
% of the sun’s existence that coincides with human existence

So something like

0.3 * 0.15 * 0.42 * 0.0000000004 * 0.0001

= 0.0000000000000008

ie an efficiency of 1 in 1.3 quadrillion

Of course most stars are less efficient that the sun given that much less of their light gets to us

% of the sun’s existence during which humans exist x

well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine!

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

to add some sunshine to our day.

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

If the purpose of the sun were to add sunshine to humans’ days, then we can estimate the efficiency of the sun as:

% of fuel ultimately consumed x
% of ultimately recoverable nuclear energy attained (for instance, the maximum amount of bond energy retrieved would occur if the entire sun were reacted through to Iron) x
% of radiation that is visible
% of sunlight that strikes the Earth x
% of the sun’s existence that coincides with human existence

So something like

0.3 * 0.15 * 0.42 * 0.0000000004 * 0.0001

= 0.0000000000000008

ie an efficiency of 1 in 1.3 quadrillion

Of course most stars are less efficient that the sun given that much less of their light gets to us

% of the sun’s existence during which humans exist x

Without which we wouldn’t and couldn’t. Efficient enough, one could possibly imagine?

Boris said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

If the purpose of the sun were to add sunshine to humans’ days, then we can estimate the efficiency of the sun as:

% of fuel ultimately consumed x
% of ultimately recoverable nuclear energy attained (for instance, the maximum amount of bond energy retrieved would occur if the entire sun were reacted through to Iron) x
% of radiation that is visible
% of sunlight that strikes the Earth x
% of the sun’s existence that coincides with human existence

So something like

0.3 * 0.15 * 0.42 * 0.0000000004 * 0.0001

= 0.0000000000000008

ie an efficiency of 1 in 1.3 quadrillion

Of course most stars are less efficient that the sun given that much less of their light gets to us

% of the sun’s existence during which humans exist x

well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine!

It’s useful enough that we exist

Boris said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

:) this.

Make hay while it shines.

If the purpose of the sun were to add sunshine to humans’ days, then we can estimate the efficiency of the sun as:

% of fuel ultimately consumed x
% of ultimately recoverable nuclear energy attained (for instance, the maximum amount of bond energy retrieved would occur if the entire sun were reacted through to Iron) x
% of radiation that is visible
% of sunlight that strikes the Earth x
% of the sun’s existence that coincides with human existence

So something like

0.3 * 0.15 * 0.42 * 0.0000000004 * 0.0001

= 0.0000000000000008

ie an efficiency of 1 in 1.3 quadrillion

Of course most stars are less efficient that the sun given that much less of their light gets to us

% of the sun’s existence during which humans exist x

well, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine!

A friend of mine was listening to that song when he heard he’d become a father. A daughter so he called her Rae.

technically, things that don’t have a purpose can’t fail

there’s your license for moral abandon

Could we stellar engineer a much more efficient sun or is a huge mass of hydrogen that self ignites and last for many years the way to go.

transition said:

technically, things that don’t have a purpose can’t fail

there’s your license for moral abandon

It is how I live.

invoking “GOD” as an explanation for natural phenomena is very efficient, it takes only 3 characters

gravity might be one of the most efficient things of nature, you could probably see it as a transducer, if wanted

SCIENCE said:

invoking “GOD” as an explanation for natural phenomena is very efficient, it takes only 3 characters

Genetic Order Deficiency?

transition said:

gravity might be one of the most efficient things of nature, you could probably see it as a transducer, if wanted

Yet it can often be your worst enemy.

transition said:

gravity might be one of the most efficient things of nature, you could probably see it as a transducer, if wanted

the now, of time, forced by thermodynamics, seems very efficient also, absolutely uncompromising of what it does

transition said:

transition said:

gravity might be one of the most efficient things of nature, you could probably see it as a transducer, if wanted

the now, of time, forced by thermodynamics, seems very efficient also, absolutely uncompromising of what it does

so you could take the essential characteristics of what certain things do, forces of physics, consider them as mechanisms (like gravity) then further consider the efficiency to be how uncompromising they are, how much they leak (equates losses)

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

There’s just about a whole industry attached to this, called biomimetics or something like that. The following that immediately come to mind are:

• Gecko feet – for clinging to smooth and vertical surfaces.
• Owl wings – for completely silent flight.
• Limpet teeth – extremely strong crystalline material.
• Spider web – the combination of extreme flexibility and extreme strength.
• Shark skin – for low drag surfaces.

I’m sure there are dozens if not hundreds of others.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Things exist in the universe that could be thought of as extremely efficient and well designed technology.

Stars for example can last for billions of years and are a continual source of energy amongst others things.
They’d probably be something you’d design as a long lived power source, could you improve on them with technology, antimatter/matter reactor are more efficient but not really self sustaining.

Trees/plants create oxygen, trap carbon dioxide, produce food and it would be extremely hard to make something that could compete with them, besides GE versions that might be able to do a better job, or something like a Star Trek replicator that makes food using energy and a base material

What else has nature gotten right that technology might never be able to do better

There’s just about a whole industry attached to this, called biomimetics or something like that. The following that immediately come to mind are:

• Gecko feet – for clinging to smooth and vertical surfaces.
• Owl wings – for completely silent flight.
• Limpet teeth – extremely strong crystalline material.
• Spider web – the combination of extreme flexibility and extreme strength.
• Shark skin – for low drag surfaces.

I’m sure there are dozens if not hundreds of others.

Even sheepsfoot rollers for compacting Earth. The conventional sheepsfoot roller used in construction is not as good as the shape of a real sheep’s foot.