Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Direct Observation Of Chemical Reactions

Posted by timothy on from the look-very-very-closely dept.

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."

15 of 29 comments (clear)

  1. They could already do this in dry environs by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:They could already do this in dry environs by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Funny

      High speed? 30 fps is the bare minimum for me. I won't even watch a chemical reaction until it's at least 60 fps. And do you know if they put the 3DMax scores into the paper?

  2. how about a nuclear reaction? by axxackall · · Score: 3, Funny

    And finally I wanna see those quarks - otherwise it's hard to believe they exist.

    --

    Less is more !
  3. Priorities by SandSpider · · Score: 2, Informative
    Researchers say this could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry.


    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.
    1. Re:Priorities by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, if you bothered to RTFA, it talks specifically about how the process was used to study interactions with copper atoms, and how they are going to apply it to improving chip manufacturing.

      So yeah, I guess they did consider that this is going to impact the computer industry. :P
      =Smidge=

  4. quantum interfearence by JDizzy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:quantum interference by jwdg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I suspect that it would be a problem in some cases - their example (clustering of metal atoms) is possibly less sensitive to excess electrons passing through than some others might be. I'm not sure that it's necessarily quantum interference either.

    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...

  6. Re:quantum interference by rhombic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  7. beyond? by Transcendent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Profound discoveries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...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!

  9. silicon nitride? by js7a · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...transmission microscopes--which shoot electrons through micron-thin samples of materials and then form an image from data about the resulting paths of the electrons--depend on placing the sample in a strong vacuum. That's fine for observing reactions between solids and gases, but it doesn't work for reactions with or inside liquids.

    "In ordinary circumstances, the liquid would just boil away," Ross said.

    Biological samples viewed under a transmission electron microscope have to be initially dehydrated, which can change their shape.

    To get around that problem, IBM devised a cell chamber that captures a layer of liquid and the elements to be studied between two silicon nitride membranes.

    "You can think of the cell as an extremely sophisticated (microscope) slide," she said.

    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?

    1. Re:silicon nitride? by tsa · · Score: 3, Informative

      The use of SixNy (almost never really Si3N4 because of its huge internal stress) for membranes for transmission electron spectroscopy is quite common. You can make very thin membranes (in the order of 50-100 nm). They are very strong and thin enough for the electrons to tunnel through. With two of these layers placed very near each other you can keep the liquid in between them and still use them for TEM. And because they are non-crystalline they don't show up in the pictures that much.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  10. Had that back in the '60s... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


    <jayleno>They called it L-S-D.</jayleno>

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. Scientists invent gassy vacuum... by JohnPM · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...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.
  12. This is still slow. by Snags · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Even this "high speed" 30 fps is still too slow to actually watch an individual chemical reaction. The amount of time it takes for a copper atom to bond to the electrode, once it gets there, should be much less than a microsecond. Most of the time in "slow" reactions is waiting for the next reactant to come along. At room temperature, a copper atom in a liquid moves at about 340 m/s = 760 MPH!

    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!