Slashdot Mirror
Caltech Shows Off a Lensless, Miniaturized Microscope
DeviceGuru writes "Caltech claims its researchers have 'turned science fiction into reality' with their development of a single-chip microscope. Although it doesn't have any lenses, the device is said to provide magnification comparable to that of sophisticated optical microscopes. The microscope's magnifying capabilities derive from a technology known as microfluidics, which is based on the channeling of fluid flow at incredibly small scales. Applications for the so-called 'optofluidic microscope' are expected to include field analysis of blood samples for malaria, or checking water supplies for giardia and other pathogens. The project's director thinks devices based on it could be implanted directly into the human body, in order to help arrest the spread of cancer." There's also coverage of the microscope at EE Times.
Why can't Slash Dot figure this out?
It's "Caltech", not "Cal Tech".
The coin in the photo is actually a dime, not a quarter as is indicated in the text.
Suspicious that they couldn't include an example of the images this thing is capable of taking. If I'm going to be using a microscope, I'm going to want it to be able to, you know, SCOPE.
Also suspicious: the "motivation". FTFA
Guh?!? Very little change?
Electron microscope- 1931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope
Phase contrast-1930's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_contrast_microscopy
Fluorescence microscopy- I don't know but well after the 16th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_microscopy
Confocal microscopy- 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_microscopy
2 photon microscopy-1960?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_excitation_microscopy
Total internal reflection fluorescence microscope- also don't know, at least after fluorescence microscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection_fluorescence_microscope
Inverted microscope- I don't know, but not too old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_microscope
And considering the 16th century microscopes had but one lens and no artifical light sources, you won't find anything similar to that in a modern day lab.
http://www.az-microscope.on.ca/history.htm
Nope, I'm working on a project with these kinds of devices and the throughput of the microfluidic channel is not sufficient to work in your bloodstream (and I doubt they have enough channels in a small enough space). You could take a tiny portion of your blood and run it through the device, but if you're looking for rouge cancer cells to zap then this would not prove effective.
You know what's also an instantly relatable unit?
Centimeters!
Oh, and by the way:
I live in Germany you insensitive clod!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Well, the first part of my post, upon further inspection, is incorrect. It's poor reporting on the part of "device guru" to not include examples, but the researchers themselves do provide a nice picture of a c.elegans in one of the links. Called that one a bit early.
So... sorry guys at caltech/ cal tech, if you happen to be reading. And guys from "device guru," shame on you (doesn't excuse me though.)
A picture is linked to in the summary: http://www.optofluidics.caltech.edu/projects/nanoparticle/index.html Thanks for reading before posting though!