Slashdot Mirror
New High-Speed Nano Imaging Device
Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have built a new nano imaging device which is 100 times faster than current technology. Not only is the 'FIRAT' (Force sensing Integrated Readout and Active Tip) much faster than the current 'AFM' (atomic force microscopy), it also is able to take movies and to simultaneously capture several physical properties of nanostructures, such as stiffness, elasticity or viscosity. In fact, the FIRAT probe, which works like a microphone, could one day replace AFM. One of the researchers commented that 'We've multiplied each of the old capabilities by at least 10, and it has lots of new applications.'"
Damn, and I thought this was about Apple's new top-secret iPod camera.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
I need to get out more.
I remember on the old Batman TV show, that Batman had a Batcomputer that could take any material and separate it into its constituent compounds. Batman and Robin could then look at what chemicals were in the material and use their Batdetective capabilities to determine the origin of it and ultimately the Batvillain behind that episode's caper.
:-p
How much cooler it is to be able to analyze the material in-situ without having to destroy it! Except for any quantum effects, I suppose.
This will go perfect with my High-Speed Nano Scratching Device (aka pocket)
Yet another device my ex-girlfriend can claim she'd need to find my unit.
Thanks a lot, march of scientific progress...
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Unlike the vast majority of science articles I read here on Slashdot, this new device appears to be the real deal, will be in actual use very quickly, and will make a difference in the relevant scientific community.
Most of the articles here are either pseudo-science or random articles with no particular scientific significance but some controversial or funny element.
They're crazy. Everyone knows nano is a text editor.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Am I the only one to think this is a bit strange? If you're discovering new drugs I'm cool with that... but to mention it as a possible drug screening device says you're not in it for the freedom that science can provide.
Beauty is just a light switch away.
Man, if you know a girl who would say, "I'd need a Force sensing Integrated Readout and Active Tip probe to find your unit!"... can I meet her?
'FIRAT' (Force sensing Integrated Readout and Active Tip)
Damn, that sounds painful.
This technology seems to solve a lot of problems with the imaging of sensitive surfaces eg biomolecules. I'd like to see how it adresses the problem of water layers on the surface to be analysed. I'd think the "microphone" would also interact with these waterlayers creating image artefacts. In my opinion the speed gain is the most interesting aspect.
In Soviet Russia elephant rides you!
The major innovation you get by using sound is that your detector can be smaller (i.e. faster) and less reliant on precise optics. This is the double whammy Grail of nano-imaging. From TFA: "For a regular AFM to detect the features of the object, the actuator must be large enough to move the cantilever up and down. The inertia of this large actuator limits the scanning speed of the current AFM. But FIRAT solves this problem by combining the actuator and the probe..." But there seems to be some discrepancy in the article. "Georgia Tech researchers have been able to use FIRAT with a commercial AFM system to produce clear scans of nanoscale features at speeds as high as 60 Hertz (or 60 lines per second)." Is this what they mean by a "movie" which they claim has never been done with AFMs? It's true that commercial AFMs do not achieve this speed, but http://hansmalab.physics.ucsb.edu/index.html/ for example custom builds AFMs to that spec since 2002. The second part that seems misinformed is that FIRAT is not unique in it's use of surface properties and a cantilever-type system. Current AFMs "bounce" off the surface in the same way, interacting well before actual contact (insofar as contact has meaning in the quantum mechanical sense).
So it could help find out Jedi candidates within us?
I don't see why this is so much different to classical AFM's. First of all, it still is an AFM, only the force detection method is different. Secondly, not all AFM's use cantilevers and optics. There are in fact quite a few alternatives (e.g. tuning forks, piezo resistive cantilevers). And still, even with classical cantilever and optics systems you can achieve much more than 60 lines per second (I first thought it supposed to be 60 frames per second). I worked with such a classical system, and it could scan at a rate of about 300 lines per second. This system was not specifically designed for high speed and was already considered outdated at that time (that was 1999). It is true, that commercial systems are generally much slower than that. But it would surprise me, if one could not find a commercial system which can do 60 lines per second these days. $.
I'n not convinced of the quality of the new device based on the information in the article. There is just not enough information. There is almost nothing about how the new system achieves its claimed amazing sensitivity and speed, except that the probe is `a bit like a cross between a pogo stick and a microphone'. They talk about a membrane with a tip on it. But only a membrane doesn't a microphone make. How does this thing measure? Inductive? Capacitative? Both have their pro's and cons, and I am sceptic concerning the sensitivity of both methods compared to the laser - optical detection of a standard AFM. As for the movies: AFM's can be used to make movies, only ususally not at 'real time' speeds (say 25 fps). But in the article they claim to achieve 60 lines per second. I guess that's not even one frame per second, so we will not see `real-time' movies made with scanning probe technology for a long time, I imagine.
-- Cheers!
Video-rate AFMs have existed for quite some time. Several exist as commercial products, e.g. http://www.infinitesima.com/VideoAFM/index.html VideoAFM from Infinitesima.
'We've multiplied each of the old capabilities by at least 10, and it has lots of new applications.'
Well....*MY* new high speed nano-imaging device has multiplied capabilities that go to 11...so there!
Boo.
This device will be used on the next season of MTV's Room Raiders.
as someone who'll be working in this field in the not-too-distant future, this could be a tremendously useful device. anything that allows a moving image is tremendously useful, and if this is as sensitive as they say, it will become a standard tool.
my question is, how much will it cost? if it's prohibitively expensive, it's usefulness is limited.
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
For those with access, anyway. Recent peer-reviewed papers from the group mentioned in the press release Onaran et al, Degertekin et al
I work with an AFM, and it's a very tempermental machine. The tips are SO delicate, if you look at them wrong, they break and are useless ($10 down the drain). They can only be used once.
It's a slow process finding the resonance frequency, using the slow piezos to move the tip to the near field, and slowly scanning the area. One of the advantages of AFM is that it can be done on completely wet samples.
There's another technology called NSOM. that does much the same thing. Many NSOMs are custom made. We use a Scanning Electron Microscope to check the tips we make to see if they are suitable. Tips are made by slowly stretching a glass wire inder high temperature until the break, giving you 2 NSOM tips.
Neat stuff.
What is the deal with this Roland Piquepaille guy feeding stories to Slashdot? There's even a "Related Links" section for him. Guys, either make him an editor or stop linking to his damn technology site. Slashdot has become less of a "News for Nerds" site and more of a C-Net / Yahoo News style site. It's a sad day when Wired outgeeks you.
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
It was previously called Integrated Force sensing Active Readout and Tip, aka I FART
GIT talks about AFM for imageing. I dont thing dragging a contact needle styllis across molecules is going to be reliable or fast.
3 8
Maybe they should visit this website and get some fresh ideas.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=137
This is what happens when we continue to trust press releases over actual science.
This may be a great new technique, but there are so many problems with that little blurb, it's amazing. I'm sitting at an AFM right now doing a lot of what they say I shouldn't be able to. Incorporating the Z-actuator on the tip is nothing new, and people are already selling high speed AFMs, and have been for quite some time now.
The cool part is that current systems rely on a one dimensional oscillator to sense forces, while this relies on a two dimensional oscillator, and that seems to be better. The bad part is that it seems to require touching the surface (which is a big problem if you want to incorporate electric forces into your measurement).
Can these devices use for quantum computer develpment? and the second thought, isn't nano technology not available yet?
I'm sure, you'd heard so many lives destroyed by caffeine users and death toll by caffeine OD addicts. LD50 of THC is about 21 grams, but how many people died from smoking pot alone?
LD50 for caffeine is 150mg/kilo of body weight,orally using the 'standard' 66kilo human makes lethal dose about 10 grams.
Where'd you get 21 grams? The closest I can figure is the 30 mg/kg for intravenous usage with female rats(males can stand double).
For humans, no LD50 has been established. The closest we've come is monkeys, and we didn't achieve LD50 even with 3000 mg/kilo. That'd be 198 grams for our 66 kilo human (most likely rounded to 200).
Well, This site says 79 grams, converting the 2.8 ounces they list to the standard grams. Note they did this off of rat studies, not the larger mammal studies that showed much larger tolerances. This still translates to eating 1.4kg of normal strength weed. Lethality is controlled the same way caffeine is. The drug is simply too diluted in normal substances to be dangerous.
What planet are you from and what biological composition is your body made out of? For a casual marijuana smoker, that may be true, but the effect is definitely not "milder" by volume.
I don't really care about 'volume', but by dose. They're different drugs. It just happens that a MJ dose is more or less one cigarette or 'doobie'. An alcohol dose is generally a 'can' or a 'shot', but is done sequentially for a harder effect. Many pile on 12 or more doses. By milder effects, I was mostly refering to subsequent violent behavior. Marijuana users are almost legendary for their non-violent, non-aggressive behavior. On the other hand, anytime you combine 20 people and a keg of beer and the cops get worried.
So has Prohibition of 1920. So has World War 2. It still does not count for many other things that violates the rights, such as abuse of power. After all, this is where you are going, the abuse of power.
Yep. A major reason that I dislike the war on drugs is that I feel that the LRT(Legalization, Regulation, Taxation) solution is better than the current prohibition. I mean, there are documented instances of police planted drugs in people's homes in order to confiscate them without trial due to drug property forfeiture laws. No knock warrents with weapons any military kill team would be proud of that occasionally hit the wrong house. We're waging a successful if slow campaign against smoking without making it illegal(well, mostly, there are areas that are prohibited).
No, it doesn't. Moderation works. Without moderation, there is no evidence that shows regulation of alcohol could have worked. For instance, Islamic countries around the world shows that alcohol CAN BE EFFECTIVELY ILLEGALIZED.
That's what I'm arguing for. Moderation. I'll fully admit that there would be problems that would be traced to the legalization. However, I feel that we're already experiencing most of them, as well as a rash of problems, including violence, resulting from the prohibition. As for the islamic countries, well, like the other commenter said, this is a dual component of their religion and harsh sentences. We're talking about death, amputations, and whippings. Even so, I've been in a number of Islamic countries and guess what, alcohol was available even there.
Your math is a bit fuzzy and deceptive. 1) 445 years of colonization? I don't think so. 2) wide spread usage of marijuana in US wasn't even until 19th century. 3) herbal use in religious settings wasn't even practiced that commonly, I doubt it's being used that commonly today regardless of the legality
1. I wasn't stating that colonization started then, but that was the first introduction of europeans to the americas, thus the first potential exposure to the plant. It could
I don't read AC A human right