Nature does not use propellers. So why do people?
economist.com
economist.com
The notable exception to the absence of free rotation in nature is the flagellum, which solves the nutrient supply issue by being so small and self-contained that it doesn't need nutrients, just the presence of an ion concentration gradient.
https://hisdarkmaterials.fandom.com/wiki/Mulefa
> The most notable feature of the mulefa was their use of seed pods as wheels. Once a zalif reached puberty, they were able to fit their spurs into the disc-shaped pods, and propelled themselves along "roads" of solidified lava with their side legs.
Maple seeds are able to take advantage of the efficiency gains of revolute motion by having their entire body rotate rather than using a static body with a freely-moving prop.
> "The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine (Mot complex) made up of protein, located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane... The rotor transports protons across the membrane, and is turned in the process. *The rotor alone can operate at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm*[!], but with the flagellar filament attached usually only reaches 200 to 1000 rpm."
Nature never ceases to amaze.
Regardless of how interesting a concept or development may be, check the logic of what you're writing before you hit publish.
Without humanity's unique ability for cooperation toward long-term goals, the main use of a wheel would be a wheelbarrow.
In most mountain areas I'd rather be on a game trail, than a road.
The paid advertising inserts in this magazine are clearly marked. This isn't one of them.
the events occuring at the cellular and bacterial level dont scale up saliently.
if we were to exploit molecular rotational engines or dynamos they would be engineered as an array, the final device would not reveal its molecular organisation as saliently as a wheel and axle assembly does.
muscle tissue is one example, although not constructed of rotational elements, the underlying structure is likened to a linear track motor, and could perhaps be cyclized to form a stator and rotor like mechanism.
That aside, the baffling part is the author thought himself well enough informed to write the article in the first place, and then that these foolish ramblings made it to the HN front page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Bacterial
>> The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism <<
Ruby-throated hummingbirds, for example, migrate 500 miles over the Gulf of Mexico in a single flight. Imagine trying to build a drone that weighs 20 grams and can fly 500 miles.
We've got a lot to figure out in terms of intelligence, energy efficiency, and material science.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/science/hummingbirds-torp...
Building roads or tracks doesn't make sense for animals, and freely rotating parts difficult on larger organisms. On the flip side, our human engineering often hasn't put energy efficiency so high up the priority list.
Even considering land animals, look at African Elephants. They can walk for days without water and weigh ~6,000 - 10,000lbs. Considerably slower than a truck with a similar weight, but still likely several times more efficient traveling over unpaved dirt.
We optimize for different things, and can be more efficient under very specific circumstances (consider Voyager, for example :P). But when it comes to packing efficiency into a small package we don't hold a candle to nature.
We'll get there eventually, and much faster than evolution did, but our technology is still in its infancy. Consider brains! What you get out of even a tiny mouse brain is bonkers when you consider what little fuel it needs.
Wind is free. Once you start carrying cargo, there's a tradeoff between cost and speed. When the cost of mechanical propulsion became low enough, it was widely adopted.
If the company in the article can evolve their technology to the point where it's cheaper, including maintenance, the fact that not everybody is going know how to work on it (always a barrier for new technology), it will get adopted.
OK not “propeller” but near enough.
Hooves are better than t[iy]res in one way: they're self-renewing.