Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Low-Cost Micromachine Writes Calligraphy With Atoms

Posted by Soulskill on from the micro-machines-have-sure-improved-since-i-was-a-kid dept.

ckwu writes "Scientists at Boston University have put together an inexpensive microelectromechanical machine that can direct atoms onto a surface in a controlled manner (abstract). The device—which acts as a moving stencil—can lay down such precise, complex patterns that the technique is akin to writing with atoms, the researchers say. They've used the machine to draw rings and infinity symbols out of gold atoms, but the technique should be compatible with almost any material."

29 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Cool Factor by chinton · · Score: 1

    That sounds so much cooler than the Star Wars Micromachines I had when I was a kid...

    1. Re:Cool Factor by chispito · · Score: 1

      That sounds so much cooler than the Star Wars Micromachines I had when I was a kid...

      Does it actually say "Micro Machines?" I would suggest that, otherwise, it's not the real thing.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  2. Everybody welcome petabytes or more on USB sticks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First implication comes to my mind is data storage. Since we can move atoms the way we want we can shape them to store info. That means we can have DNA/Brain efficiency or more to store data.

  3. Re:what impact has this on lithography by boristdog · · Score: 1

    what impact has this on lithography and semiconductors industry?

    None, until it is scalable to do millions of lines at once.

  4. Cool. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time and effort until we have a live-action nano-scale version of Minecraft.

  5. One Step Closer by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    To the ability of rearranging protons and neutrons on a nucleus.

    1. Re:One Step Closer by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Sure, all they have to do is scale it down further a few orders of magnitude. Easy Peasy.

    2. Re:One Step Closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhh, this is on the micron level. Atoms are closer to 1 nanometer. 1 micron = 1000 nanometers.

      Still 1000x too big.

    3. Re:One Step Closer by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      One has to start somewhere, considering that those who started used sticks and rocks to separate stuff out of the soil and arrange it into things like buildings, and can openers.

    4. Re:One Step Closer by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      What a hell of an intriguing question; worth a trip to Stockholm for a small bag of chocolates, and a prize.

  6. Re:already done by someone else better by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    I think the story is low cost/inexpensive. Though I suspect that may be in relative term.

  7. Re:already done by someone else better by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the story is low cost/inexpensive.

    Low cost? Have you seen the prices for atomic refill cartridges for this thing? And you thought ink jet ink was overpriced!

    --
    John
  8. Picotechnology by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    And so it begins.

    Printing 3D structures on an atomic (or even molecular) will make current 3D printing tech look like play-dough. Scale this up, and even printing food isn't too inconceivable.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Picotechnology by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      why bother to print, most food is made of cells, they can be grown. you won't be assembling cells in your printer.

    2. Re:Picotechnology by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it takes one second to print a square nanometer, then printing a whole square meter will take 10^18 seconds, that's more than 3x 10^8 years which is 300 million years. Then you need many, many layers to make e.g. a thin crust pizza.

      Of course, maybe it can be faster, maybe you can use ten thousands nanoprinters/picoprinters in parallel or more but that's the main objection I have for now about printing macro objects on the nano scale. I do realize the existence of regular food means the concept isn't totally unworkable, it gives an indication of the "scale up" factor as well. How many millions, billions or trillions of cells are involved in making a grain of rice or an egg?, I have no clearly accurate idea.

    3. Re:Picotechnology by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Eventually, it'll be more of a case of why you wouldn't want to. If you can print ANYTHING on an atomic scale, easily, you might as well as food to that list. Advantages also include:

      a: Potentially much quicker to produce and more plentiful.
      b: Reclaiming all the world's farmland back.
      c: Printing foods which are unique in texture and taste to anything we have today.
      d: Printing food in climates with little rain or sun.
      e: ...and from the comfort of your own home without going to the supermarket.
      f: Perfect reproducibility; making sure your favourite food/drink will not be discontinued by fickle market forces.

      I'm sure you can think of a few others to add to that list.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Picotechnology by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      That exponential growth you speak of reminds me of something to with computer memory and CPU speed. Single digits growing to trillions - I wonder if that could happen in reality.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    5. Re:Picotechnology by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      A lifeform is essentially a printer, or a mechanical machine, just a very advanced one. But it is how it is only thanks to evolution. And evolution's goal isn't always to create the biggest mass as quickly as possible, and even if it was, it is hampered by energy concerns, and the need to be self-reproducing. If we had practically limitless energy and a targeted goal without the messiness of evolution, who knows what we may achieve.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:Picotechnology by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you don't understand, it's one thing to stick an atom on a substrate. it's quite another to make the various kinds of bonds that tie atoms together in chemicals and living things. most of those can't be done one at a time, the bonds only can be made by atoms already in complicated bonds with others. the proteins in a cell, and the way they fold and bind is exceedingly complex, supercomputers run for days to model such reactions.

    7. Re:Picotechnology by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Yep, printing food is a bad idea. Until you have a von Neumann machine, the big point is to use it to make a von Neumann machine. Once you're there, the exponential benefits of transistor design can be realized on the macro scale. Then making a pizza becomes a trivial process. Of course, then the big trick is not turning the whole world into pizzas.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  9. The ultimate 3d printer by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

    Instead of waiting 5 hours to print your Yoda head, you can print it in mere decades.

    The upside, you won't have layer lines, and you can choose materials other than PLA and ABS.

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
  10. Doesn't sound too hot. by lxs · · Score: 1

    I own a ballpoint pen that writes with a mixture of ions and molecules. It's made by Bic. The same company also makes tiny portable plasma generators called lighters.

  11. Re:already done by someone else better by idunham · · Score: 1

    From the fine article:

    The micromachines don't cost much to make, Bishop says. The scientists order the polysilicon plates from a commercial foundry at low cost and then use a focused ion beam to pierce the nanosized holes in the plates. The micromachines are so cheap, Bishop says, that the team can experiment with one, throw it out, and "go get another clean one--for a dollar or two."

    Also news is that it can draw shapes with holes.

  12. In other words... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    This is old news? http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/drive_to_discover&id=6755677

  13. Neither atomic nor really new. by bellylaugh · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting machine, with it's shutter. Here's a direct link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.1334.pdf I hate exaggeration in sci news, (50 nm)^3 is a minimum spot size of about 10,000,000 atoms, or 50,000 of atoms if they do a single atom thick deposition. Also, Standard FIBs can already deposit gold and other things using a deposition gas injector, with similar resolution and speed, and no aperture to clog. A Russian group drew images of characters in a similar way in 2006, with apertures, with the same resolution. ("Atom 'Pinhole Camera' with Nanometer Resolution" [Russian translation: actually a pinhole lithographic projector], V.I.Balykin et al, link: www.researchgate.net/publication/226645891_Atom_pinhole_camera_with_nanometer_resolution/file/d912f50a8a891ad5e2.pdf)

  14. Re:Everybody welcome petabytes or more on USB stic by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

    We come back full circle to punch cards.

  15. Re:already done by someone else better by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

    Jeez, RTFA much? This can write with anything that's vaporizable; dip-pen nanolithography is limited to liquid inks. It's mentioned by name in the story.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  16. Patents by AnuradhaRatnaweera · · Score: 1

    And 10 years later, Slashdot will report that the Boston University is suing, again.

  17. Low cost??? by elagachado · · Score: 1

    Well it is, as long as you've got (free) access to a Focused Ion Beam... Problem his that kind of hardware costs something like a million euro...