Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Caltech Shows Off a Lensless, Miniaturized Microscope

Posted by timothy on from the perfect-for-underwater-philately dept.

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.

16 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Argh by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's "Caltech", not "Cal Tech".

    1. Re:Argh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's "Caltech", not "Cal Tech".

      Yes, exactly. I'm an alumnus. Often when I say, "it's Caltech, not Cal Tech," people look at me funny. By way of explanation, I carry on, "it's a private institution, not part of the UC system." If they continue to have crossed eyes, then, "look, Berkley is Cal Berkley because it's really the University of California at Berkley, Davis is Cal Davis because it's the University of California at Davis, and the same is true for for UCLA, UCSF, UC Irvine, UCSB, etc., but Caltech is the California Institute of Technology, not part of the UC system." By this time, they've either walked away, or have written me off as a total loon, but the point has been made: Caltech, not Cal Tech.

      Slashdot editors, please take note.

      It's Berkeley, not Berkley.

  2. Image splicing by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All of the images are then pieced together to create a surprisingly precise two-dimensional picture of the object.

    So how much of this device is really software on a much larger device like a laptop?

  3. Washington Quarter Noses by avandesande · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many Washington quarter noses will fit in a Library of Congress?

    Could they have just used millimeters?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Washington Quarter Noses by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was not meant to be funny! This is the dumbing down of our society and it sucks!

      If you use actual units of measure:
      1) Scientifically minded people will know what you're talking about
      2) Young inquiring minds will expand their knowledge of a measuring unit
      3) People that don't care enough to find out about measuring units won't care about your article either

      If you make up some stupid unit:
      1) You annoy scientifically minded people
      2) Young minds don't learn anything about measuring units
      3) They still don't care!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Washington Quarter Noses by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
  4. Re:Practical Applications by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're trying to turn your own body into a police state, you just let them go after the "rogue" cancer cells, but then it will be the normal cancer cells, and then they'll start profiling against any minority cell, and soon enough every cell will be living in fear of their screening chip overlords.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. Examples? And blatantly wrong about history by philspear · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    Our research is motivated by the fact that microscopes have been around since the 16th century, and yet their basic design has undergone very little change and has proven prohibitively expensive to miniaturize

    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

  6. Would it be... by ClosedEyesSeeing · · Score: 3, Funny

    a micro-microscope?

    1. Re:Would it be... by fretburnr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't that be a picoscope?

  7. Re:Practical Applications by Compholio · · Score: 4, Informative

    Practical aplication from TFA:

    "Yang thinks devices containing the microscope could even be implanted directly into the human body. Such a device, he suggests, could autonomously screen for and isolate rogue cancer cells in blood circulation"

    Discuss!

    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.

  8. Re:Practical Applications by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    hmm but if they also go after excess fat cells I just might make a deal.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  9. It *HAS* a lens! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because it's not built from glass (which some may argue is also a liquid) does not make it any less of a lens.

    It's not lensless, it's a different kind of lens.

  10. Where's the pictures? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I expected a new microscope to have some pictures to show...

    --
    No sig today...
  11. CORRECTION: they did provide examples by philspear · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.)

  12. Re:Caltech not Cal Tech by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Calcutta Technical Institute is a fine school.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates