Slashdot Mirror
Direct Observation Of Chemical Reactions
Mouth of Sauron writes "I saw on C|net that researchers with IBM have devised a way to directly observe chemical reactions as they occur in a liquid with an electron microscope. Frances Ross of IBM was awarded the Burton Medal by the Microscopy Society of America. Researchers say this could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry."
Just remember how faceless Joe lost his leg.
The new advantage is that they can make 30 fps observation of chemical reactions in a liquid. Previously, they could get 30 fps in gas or solids, and they could get 3 fps in liquid, but now they can get both at high speed.
Really interesting. I want to hear what they're learning.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
And finally I wanna see those quarks - otherwise it's hard to believe they exist.
Less is more !
I mean, I know we're computer geeks and all, but did researchers really first think, "Wow, this is going to impact the computer industry for sure!"? Or perhaps did they think of, for example, medicine, where chemical reactions are common during the practice, rather than during manufacturing stage, which is the only time chemical reactions in a liquid are really going to matter.
Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
Would the use of electron bombardment cause the classical quantum conundrum where direct observation of particles affects their quantum state, and I suppose their non-quantum existance? I'm actually suprised this hasn't happened already. Electron microscopes normally have to look at very still stuff, and a chemical recation isn't still by any measure. But photographing moving stuff would seem to be the next logical step (still pictures, motion pictures). I'd like to see some microscopic movies of fire (combustion) in action! ;)
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
The other thing worth mentioning is that depending on the process you're observing, the 1 frame/30 seconds offered by competitor technologies may not really be a problem. Some reactions are slow! (About 10-15 years ago, the oxidisation of Si(111) 7x7 was one of the questions that people were interested in, and you could slow down the process by letting the oxygen into your vacuum chamber more slowly.)
Also, bear in mind that electron transmission is only one thing you might want to measure - atomic force microscopes and scanning tunnelling microscopes measure surface properties (e.g. STMs measure the local density of electon states). Now if they can just get the scanning faster....
This is still interesting stuff. Some day when I get bored, I'll build myself an STM...
Some day when I get bored, I'll build myself an STM...
You mean like here?
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
And I wasn't joking - I was involved in a university "improvised STM" project once, so I can just about remember how to do it. The piezo element was nearly the most expensive bit of the thing for that one as well.
Researchers say this could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry."
Since when did all science work in the favor of just the computer industry? You make it sound like we apply all new knowledge and then worry about the rest afterward. I would think that the computer industry would be one of the last to benefit. FIRST you would go through cleaner chemical processing, better-made biodegradable materials, more advanced propulsion systems (more efficient, really), better food processing, stronger materials.... and then maybe someone will apply this to semiconductors.
The most obvious applications do not envolve computers... I hope everyone else here has a more open mind.
...could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry.
We already know mixing alcohol and driving can cause huge impacts!
How come a silicon nitride membrane strong enough to hold a liquid away from a vacuum doesn't diffract or deflect electrons? Is there something special about silicon nitride that makes it transparent to electrons?
Neat trick, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to believe it without an explanation. Si3N4 has a dielectric constant of 7.5; what gives?
<jayleno>They called it L-S-D.</jayleno>
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...depend on placing the sample in a strong vacuum. That's fine for observing reactions between solids and gases...
Um, strong vacuum != gases. Heh.
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
You can watch a cluster grow, though. So, they can watch where the first atom deposits, then the second, etc. Determining where and how a metal cluster forms is important. But catching an atom in the act of bonding would be quite difficult.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
The original paper explains how they squeezed their own experiment into a conventional TEM set-up consisting of an environmental cell in an intermediate voltage Hitachi TEM equipped with a Gatan energy filter. The final magnified image is captured from a fluorescent screen with a monochrome video camera. If a higher frame rate were necessary all it would require is a different CCD with a higher clock rate. The TEM itself produces a continuous image just like a light microscope.
The emphasis put by C/Net on IBM's 'dominant' position in the EM field is amusing; over the years IBM have made important contributions to the technology of imaging with charged particles but never produced EM's etc. in series. The equipment used here is from Hitachi, Gatan and FEI (formerly Philips)! The energy filter is the part that helps to enhance the contrast between the small copper clusters and all the other comparatively thick objects in the path of the electrons. It can be compared to the effect of a highly selective colour filter in the case of a visible light image.
Nice work by IBM, pity C/Net didn't quite get the right perspective.
You could always talk to Ahmed Zewail (1999 Nobel laureate in Chemistry). His work was on using laser flashes to gather images over a time scale of femtoseconds (10^-15 seconds). I'm not sure how detailed these pictures would be, however, or if the method would be viable in liquid.
The picture detail from light isn't nearly as good as from electrons. In electron microscopy, you can (barely) see the positions of individual atoms, which are a few Angstroms apart. Laser light has a much larger wavelength (>1000 Ang) and hence gives less resolution.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!