Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Perfect Crystals Grown by Cancelling Out Gravity on Earth

Posted by Zonk on from the hippies-across-the-globe-cheer dept.

willatnewscientist writes "Researchers in the Netherlands and Japan have found a way to grow perfect crystals in 'zero gravity' here on Earth. By exploiting the way a powerful magnet influences diamagnetic materials they have been able to grow protein crystals without the defects normally introduced as a result of gravity (The same trick has been used to levitate a frog before). Normally, such crystals are grown in space, such as aboard the International Space Station."

83 comments

  1. Yes, but... by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they grow the crystals INSIDE of a levitating frog?

    Now that would be cool.

    Mmmm... frog crystals...

    1. Re:Yes, but... by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I feel for the frogs. I've had kidney stones. Even perfect ones would hurt like hell.

    2. Re:Yes, but... by ChePibe · · Score: 5, Funny

      True. But then the frog could boastfully say, "I even piss perfection."

    3. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mmmm... frog crystals...

      "We secretly replaced these French diners' frog legs with Folger's Crystals. Let's see if they notice the difference...!"

    4. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frog crystals, gives something else for the frenchies to snort. haha.

    5. Re:Yes, but... by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      Did they grow the crystals INSIDE of a levitating frog?

      Oh!

      That would make for an even crunchier frog, provided that they use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest-quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.

      Ah, progress...

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    6. Re:Yes, but... by dwarfking · · Score: 1

      Oh man, you're making me feel old. How long has it been since there was the Folger's Crystal coffee swap commercials?

    7. Re:Yes, but... by primeblend · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      this is funny how? mods, please.

    8. Re:Yes, but... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      You're right, these are just your normal, boring, everyday zero gravity crystal formation and frog levitation scientists. There is nothing inherently humourous about this scenario at all. Please move along.

    9. Re:Yes, but... by cuantar · · Score: 1

      Well, I laughed, so that makes at least two of us who thought it was funny.

      --
      Legalize it.
    10. Re:Yes, but... by xENoLocO · · Score: 3, Funny

      A talking levitating perfect crystal growing frog? ... the plot thickens!

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    11. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, you're making me feel old. How long has it been since there was the Folger's Crystal coffee swap commercials?

      Mid-to-late 1980's at least. YouTube has some of the commercials up.

      Remember, you're not old, you're just a collector of vintage calendars!

    12. Re:Yes, but... by fbartho · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it crystallizes!

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    13. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, thanks, it's crystal clear now.

  2. Cost? by jigjigga · · Score: 0

    Nearly as costly as space, if I recall correctly- that magnet system costs a fortune to operate.

    1. Re:Cost? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Nearly as costly as space, if I recall correctly- that magnet system costs a fortune to operate.

      Yes, but it is easier to experiment on earth, and they'd probably find a way to lower costs if it entered into production.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Cost? by richdun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahem... from TFA:

      "What's more, the technique will be faster and much cheaper than growing crystals in space, he says."

      So at least they say it will be much cheaper.

    3. Re:Cost? by MrMr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It will cost the space program a lot of support.
      There goes the 'we can make much better crystals of proteins in zero-G' sales pitch (Anyone dare to guess how many http://www.pdb.org/PDB entries are space-crystals and how much better they are than the flatland versions?)

    4. Re:Cost? by dunadan67 · · Score: 1

      TFA says, "What's more, the technique will be faster and much cheaper than growing crystals in space..."

      Of course, the researcher is likely projecting costs down the road when fine-tuning reduces costs.

    5. Re:Cost? by SpringRevolt · · Score: 1

      Actually, growing crystals in zero-G is at best only a small to marginal improvement.

      AFAIR, when the space crystals were tested a few years ago, the only improvement was a limited reduction in the rocking width. The crystals did not diffract to higher resolutions. Better crystals could quite likely be achieved by reducing the micro-hetrogeneity
      (i.e. purification of some sort). That's a lot cheaper.

      There may be one or 2 space structures at www.pdb.org, but they're probably lysozyme.

      Also (IFRC again) NASA publicised about how worthwhile it was doing space research by highlighting the importance of improved crystals. They weren't very improved and many members of the community (including me) thought that sending astronauts in to space for reasons such as these was a waste - and the expense (in all ways) could not be justified by the returns.

    6. Re:Cost? by fireslack · · Score: 1

      It could possibly cost the space program a lot of money, but would this have even been discovered without the space program? I mean, if its easier to do the initial research in space, then the space program is serving its purpose.

      --
      This sig only exists because you are observing it.
  3. Wait.. by ystar · · Score: 1

    The challenges poised to frog levitation is now classified as a defect caused by gravity? I thought it was usually the bugs that were misreported as features...

    1. Re:Wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the crystal growing frog eats the bugs, is that a feature?

  4. obiligatory... by corgan517 · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new anti-gravity crystalline amphibious overlords...

    1. Re:obiligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possible application:

      Antimatter storage.

  5. This is the breakthrough we needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to train ants to sort tiny screws on Earth before sending them into space to sort said screws.

  6. One big problem. by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It won't work for all types of crystal, only those with specific magnetic properties. Proteins are fine, but semiconductors - where defects in the tens of nanometers are highly significant - won't be growable this way. Of course, there's nothing to stop you launching a vaccuum flask-like container into space and have crystals grow in true microgravity conditions at a very very slow pace. Sadly, there isn't a market for million-dollar CPU cores.

    On the protein side, this will be interesting, though. As the article states, growing highly precise protein structures is a Big Deal and very very hard. The potential benefits to the medical industry are hard to predict, but will be significant. This isn't merely a fun exercise, this could have some very substantial benefits. Not sure if it could be used to amplify prions, but if it could, that would make studying the B**** so much easier.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:One big problem. by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Instead of `canceling' out the gravity, why not just average it out across all directions by simply rotating the thing that grows crystals?

      Just curious.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:One big problem. by semiotec · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. likely won't work for all proteins. It seems this just allows the crystals to grow BIGGER (which is a very good thing) but doesn't actually make the process easier. Protein crystals are a bastard to grow, depending on a lot of things like solvent conditions, temperature, even vibrations and so on. They only used lysosome as a test, which had been done a long time ago, as a protein, it's easy to produce and purify. You can even order it by the grams cheaply from Sigma, it's sort of the biological equivalent of buying sugar and salt from the supermarket. Would be more interesting if they tackled something more difficult, like a big complex or something.

      2. Prions won't crytallise (easily...). They are fibrous. I think the closest type of things people have managed was fibrinogen, and they had to chop up that protein into its core region before it can be done (and it was a major finding when it was published). Prions in its "bad" form aggregates fast and is resistant to a lot of tricks to break it down. Furthermore, even prion in its "good" form seem to lack defined structure, so even the good form isn't going to crystallise that well.

    3. Re:One big problem. by Enlightenment · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then it wouldn't grow symmetrically--you'd have to rotate it extremely fast, changing direction periodically and quickly, to achieve that sort of effect.

    4. Re:One big problem. by TheMeuge · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sadly, there isn't a market for million-dollar CPU cores.

      I disagree. We do need SOMETHING capable of running Vista well...
    5. Re:One big problem. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "I disagree. We do need SOMETHING capable of running Vista well..."

      Ahaha! HaahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA A!!!

      That was AWESOME!!

      I'd say more, but there's a Police Academy marathon I'm really itching to catch. CYA!!!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:One big problem. by Hoags · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not an expert in this field, or frankly any field, but my reaction to this was: "Okay. Why don't they do that?"

    7. Re:One big problem. by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the gamer market will be buying those multi million dollar processors in a few more decades.

      Shortly thereafter, it will be a necessity in order to run the latest version of Windows.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    8. Re:One big problem. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When you rotate something, provided it remains intact, you are changing the direction of all the particles constantly. This can be a good thing - you can create "artificial gravity" by spinning things up by using this method. Because more massive particles will have more inertia than lighter particles, it can also be used to separate things that are mixed together. This is how plasma is extracted from the other components in blood, for example. When things are loosely connected, there is also usually some dragging going on, which is why rapidly-spinning galaxies have a spiral shape. The extra distance the outside needs to travel is so great and the connection so weak that the arms are smeared backwards. For more tightly-connected things, there's usually some strain built up. Your computer's hard drive is probably spinning at 7200 revolutions per minute, which is equal to 120 times a second. The center of the spindle has a speed of zero feet per second. The outside of the drive is traveling at around 157 feet per second. That's not insignificant, although drives are built to easily withstand such stresses. I've seen many a hard drive fail due to head crashes and bearing failures, never deformed surfaces.

      This is not to say that spinning couldn't be used to prepare certain materials under certain conditions. As I said, separation is a major use for spinning, and artificial gravity is another. Don't ever be put off by people saying that something can't be used for X because the odds are that it IS used for Y and will be used for Z once someone figures out what Z is. Asking questions like this is important, because that's when intuition usually gets converted into inspiration.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:One big problem. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Could the process be used to create Very-Very-Long chains of carbon tubes? Also, by changing the support catalyst, could a Silicon Alloy be used instead of Carbon?

    10. Re:One big problem. by stolaf · · Score: 1

      Not only are most proteins not able to use this method, protein crystallography is still as much an art as a science. The process of forming a protein crystal requires a protein solution that very slowly becomes super-saturated to the point that the protein molecules start to clump together. To be any good for crystallography, that clumping has to be very controlled (slighly negative second virial coefficient.) If the clumping is too rapid or too favorable, the protein will just crash out like a scrambled egg. If its too slow or repulsive you can wait years to get a decent crystal.

      As it has been pointed out lysozyme is NOT a good test protein -- its been done way to often and will crystallize in dozens of different conditions. Real interesting proteins are difficult to crystalize and sometimes will crystalize once and cannot be repeated. This has led to high-throughput robotic methods of trying thousands of different crystallization conditions. Investing the time and effort to perfect a single condition with magnetic levitation may only be useful once small crystals can be developed by other methods.

      I think that the real benefit of this work will be to expand the use of neutron diffraction. Current neutron sources are far less intense than x-ray sources. So increasing the crystal size can help a lot. Finally, it might seem counterintuitive but sometimes "perfect" crystals are actually bad -- too small of a crystal mosaicity (how disordered a crystal is) can actually make getting good diffraction data difficult. In these cases (which unfortunately I have not experienced) the crystals are actually purposefully deformed in order to get measurable diffraction data.

      All that being said, anyone know where I can get a 33 tesla magnet? Besides having fun levitating small amphibians, I have this paramagnetic protein I'd like to make into jewlery. . .

    11. Re:One big problem. by Enlightenment · · Score: 1

      My question is, How fast is fast enough? And is that speed achievable?

  7. The Incredible Levitating Frog by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

    The same trick has been used to levitate a frog before

    Here's the frog they're talking of:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Frog_diamagneti c_levitation.jpg

    And here's a more boring example with graphite, although maybe more clear:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diamagnetic_gra phite_levitation.jpg
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:The Incredible Levitating Frog by AnonymousCactus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Static jpegs are so 5 years ago.
      Diamagnetic Frog on YouTube

    2. Re:The Incredible Levitating Frog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man the frog must have been pissed!

  8. EBAY listing-- by tazsl · · Score: 3, Funny

    1 levitating crystaline frog pendant--$2,300,000.21 Amaze your friends! Great school project! Requires 1 nuclear reactor(not included) Coming next week--antiproton earrings--

    --
    for every complex problem , there is a solution that is simple , neat , and wrong.
    1. Re:EBAY listing-- by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'll take the crystaline frog, please... the earrings would be a cool gift, but there's just no place in this universe anyone would wear them. Not unless they want to be the booming center of attention, anyway.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. So all that's left is Tang? by joshv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now that we can make perfect crystals on the ground that leaves, let's see.... Tang and zero-G pens as the sole benefit of manned space flight.

    1. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot evenly-heated cookware...

    2. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      We make the pens and Tang down here, too. Why do they get to stay?

      Or are you suggesting that we'd already have discovered and created these crystals on earth without that experiment? Why wouldn't we have created the pens and Tang here instead?

      Just because something has been done again in a different way doesn't mean the original way wasn't instrumental in finding it.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by OldChemist · · Score: 1

      You forgot adult diapers...

    4. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      You forgot adult diapers...


      uh-oh, you can tell from over there?

    5. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      yeah well I dropped a piece of foam on my "evenly-heated cookware" and it left this huge gouge...

      --
      We are all just people.
    6. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by tazsl · · Score: 1

      No problem. Just use your , NASA supplied , "evenly-heated cookware" repair kit.

      --
      for every complex problem , there is a solution that is simple , neat , and wrong.
    7. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like a zero-G penis. Or maybe that's an inertia-less penis? Oh boy.

    8. Re:So all that's left is Tang? by joeme1 · · Score: 1

      What about Tempurpedic mattresses and all those hundreds of products on late night infomercials?

  10. Lex Luthor would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use them to build a new continent.

    1. Re:Lex Luthor would by moxley · · Score: 1

      And a lot of people here could use them to build some new COMMENTS.

  11. Stupid F'ing movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a god awful stupid movie.
    70-ish years of comics and that is the plot they came up with? F'ing morons.

  12. hmmm... by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    am i alone in finding the levitating frog cooler? or is it just the weed talking again?

    --
    http://xkcd.com/313/
  13. Null Gravity by hansamurai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The enemy's gate is down!

    --
    Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
  14. Frog Crystals in Your Cup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [quote]Mmmm... frog crystals...[/quote]
    Because that is the best part of waking up? To each their own.

    On another note, has anyone noticed the Slashdot captchas becoming more and more disturbing? The last two I had were "victims" and "murder". The other day it said "CmdrTaco"... Really freaked me out.

  15. Photographs? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Any photographs of these perfect crystals created in this?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Photographs? by counterfriction · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I've got a photo right here.
      Been using this technique for years, actually.

      --
      Sig free's the way to be.
    2. Re:Photographs? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Is that just a piece or the whole crystal?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Photographs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try this paragraph:

      The researchers only ran the magnets long enough to show that they could control the growth plume. The next step, they say, is to design magnets that can be run for long enough to grow complete crystals of the necessary size.
    4. Re:Photographs? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Where's the link for it?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  16. Think of the spin-off technologies by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just imagine when they adapt this same technique to work with breasts!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  17. Good science, bad headline by viking80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I write this comment as I sit in my gravity canceling chair, sipping a coke contained in a gravity canceling device called a glass. Even the keyboard is supported by a gravity canceling surface I call a table.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Good science, bad headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my chair was gravity 'cancelling' my butt wouldn't be sore after sitting in it all day.

    2. Re:Good science, bad headline by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      Look, a levity canceling comment!

    3. Re:Good science, bad headline by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      If I had a chair like that I would never stand.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    4. Re:Good science, bad headline by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      Their thing applies the force to all the molecules evenly, not just the bottom side. Maybe if you mentioned your pool!

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    5. Re:Good science, bad headline by AnonymousDivinity · · Score: 1

      There is a stark difference between canceling gravity out on an object via a boundary force (such as the electromagnetic forces that your chair exerts on you) - which causes stress on the object - and canceling gravity internal to the object, which does not.

      From a purely practical perspective, the main thing that determines the evolution of quantum waveforms (if you'll take that view of things) is the local energy levels - the particular forces that are superimposed to create the potential field are pretty much irrelevant in and of themselves.

      So to sum up, no, this doesn't "cancel out gravity" in the most literal sense, but it cancels out the *effects* of that gravity (which is, for the scientists involved, the important part) just fine. And no, no your chair does not do that.

      --
      --- To each of us a Truth is given.
  18. Sure there is! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    "there isn't a market for million-dollar CPU cores"

    NASA and DARPA beg to differ...

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  19. Beam us up, Scotty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Di-lithium! Cool, finally!

  20. Perfect Crystals by proxy318 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wasn't that the name of a tv show in the 80s?

    --
    Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
  21. How long does it, take , just use free fall! by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Build a 5000-10000ft deep mine shaft, and install a "free fall" elevator lab. If it takes 10 seconds to grow crystals, you dont need much height to
    achieve zero g. Just make a 10sq platform, drop it... falll for 12 seconds.... then slow it down from 12 to 20.... bingo instant 10 second duration zero G LAB on earth.

    And just repeat.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:How long does it, take , just use free fall! by mpe · · Score: 1

      Build a 5000-10000ft deep mine shaft, and install a "free fall" elevator lab. If it takes 10 seconds to grow crystals, you dont need much height to achieve zero g. Just make a 10sq platform, drop it... falll for 12 seconds.... then slow it down from 12 to 20.... bingo instant 10 second duration zero G LAB on earth.

      In something like half that time you are going to run into problems with terminal velocity. Unless you can find a way to make your shaft a decent vacuum.

    2. Re:How long does it, take , just use free fall! by xmarkd400x · · Score: 1

      Unless you can find a way to make your shaft a decent vacuum. Shaft? Vacuum? You must be new here.
  22. I want to see... by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    the perfect Crystals. Where are the pics?

  23. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not that they locally canceled gravity, this is that they introduced another force of same strength but going the other way around. So the force budget is zero and the crystal stays suspended, but gravity is still on it. I would say , levitated it by compensating gravity with the magnetic force.

  24. Nah. by jd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Even if we could grow 12' wafers that were pure enough to be used as single, gigantic wafer-scape processors, you'll never get Vista to work well. Besides, if Microsoft charged per core, you'd be bankrupt.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  25. A 33-tesla magnet uses a lot of juice by KidSock · · Score: 1

    I wonder how affordable this is if it requires a 33 tesla magnet to run long enough for crystals to grow (weeks).

    1. Re:A 33-tesla magnet uses a lot of juice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can give you an idea of the electricity bill. A resistive (non-superconducting) magnet at 33T consumes about 20 MW of electricity. So to run the magnet for, say, one entire week will cost 20,000 kW * 168h = 3.4e6 kWh. At $0.10/kWh, that works out to $340,000/week. I dunno, that's probably still cheaper than blasting it into space...

  26. Weird units... by Cervantes · · Score: 1

    TFA says they're using a "33 Tesla magnet".

    What's with these weird, nonstandard units? How many lightning strikes per american football pitch is that? Or lightbulbs per library of congress?

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.