It's not a type of interferometry as they don't measure phase-shifts directly. They measure the diffraction pattern and infer the phase-shifts that would result in such an image. Basically measuring the Fraunhofer diffraction pattern and computationally reconstructing a sample that would create such a pattern.
As such if the sample was a plane normal to the electron beam they would see nothing in this method. The imaging is not done in the Fourier domain thou the reconstruction can be if you prefer. For the imaging it is merely a standard electron imaging array which is why on their webpage they can show
"The [diffraction] image before it is reconstructed using a computer"
Electron imaging is only possible in vacuum and delivers massive doses typically to microscopic samples. So I doubt it will replace medical CAT or MRI scans any time soon.
Basically what they have done is phase contrast transmission electron imaging. This is quite an achievement in itself and well done to them. However they most certainly did not invent this "technique" (and I doubt they actually claimed that). The method is well known from X-ray phase contrast imaging research.
They even wrote this:
"The technique is applicable to microscopes using any type of wave and has other key advantages over conventional methods. For example, when used with visible light, the new technology forms a type of image that means scientists can see living cells very clearly without the need to stain them, a process which usually kills the cells."
Em, yes but optical phase-contrast is damn well established. O and Frits Zernike who got the Nobel prize for doing exactly this in 1953 might be pissed off.
Wrong! You can infer the phase by measuring the deflection angle due to the phase-shift. Naturally this doesn't work for normal angles of incident but the images are still dramatically improved.
Sounds exactly like 1955s project Orion. And similarily to it I don't think they can actually legally work on this idea due to international nuclear regulation. In particular the comprehensive test ban treaty.
Because after all what you are designing is something very like an icbm with a "dirty" warhead. I god damn guarantee if Iran openly worked on this the US would bust itself to attack ASAP.
It is indeed the latter for the reason given above. The dose or ionizing damage is actually much smaller. The cross section or likelihood of interaction/damage decreases quickly with energy according to http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/tissue.html
"So, if there was not Steve Jobs, do you really think we had now affordable music for download?"
Yes it was heading that way for a long time. As it got easier to post and share media (even as Apple fought against it with DRM and the locking of itunes accounts to a few computers) the media producers needed to respond. Banning technology simply doesn't work in the long run. Hence they basically had to lower the effort hurdles to buying music legally. Given they already were in nearly all high streets and were advertising intensively on TV really on-line with a simple interface was the only way. I doubt this could have went down any other way.
"Multi touch gestures?"
No clearly no one would ever have thought of that it's a world changing thought. Not the natural human manipulation style at all and definitely something that should have been granted a sweeping patent stopping others implementing this quite easily achieved feature.
"Nearly everything he did (or bought and used, like the gUI, mouse etc.) in principle could have been done by anyone. But he did it, the others did not.
Unix on the Desktop... where is it?"
He also did the Apple Lisa, Apple TV, the touchWheel-less iPod Shuffle, Final Cut Pro X, Ping, Pippin, iPod Photo etc
O and "anyone" is only anyone with the vast resources of Apple not least of which is their incredibly aggressive legal team. So no individual or even small company can compete in the same arena as Apple as their fans often religiously only buy Apple, no matter the costs or quality. Plus Apple's legal team can will tie the smaller company up in pointless legal cases until they run out of money.
"Do you really think Android would exist if there was no iOS?"
Yes as phone technology improved it was inevitable that OSes would start to appear to allow more integrated control of the hardware. Everyone knew that long before the iPhone, look at the 2003 interview in BusinessWeek with Android's Rubin.
"Apple always in one sense was conservative, not going to the limit some developers envisioned, but also always pushed standards and limits. E.g. the "retina display", firewire, removing the floppy etc. etc.
Every singel thing Steve Jobs "introduced" for it self is not much. But the combination off all them together is."
They certainly are conservative. That's because they generally implement what is basically available elsewhere and then polish the UI up. Look at your own example of "Unix on the Desktop". Admittedly that in itself is actually a very good thing but when they sell and promote it as if it's something they alone invented last Wednesday that's pretty nasty. It is also annoying to people that have been using similar products for months/years, its spectacularly annoying if the Apple announcement gets greeted by a bunch of people bowing in reference and chanting about their genius they are so much inventive than anyone else.
Yip I was thinking that.
I always considered it a PC strength that they had diversity and competition in models and makes.
Slightly amused at this aspect being portrayed as a weakness.
It's horses for courses, no?
Focusing consumer choice and well defined product ranges is all very well.
But ultimately it all boils down to telling people "no, you don't want that you want this".
Your totally right you should not infer safety from "no data available". But to be fair their are some good reasons to assume "Nanoparticle" gold might be safe.
a) Macroscopic gold is bioinvert. Which is why markers of it are often implanted in tumors to aid tumor visualization in radiotherapy.
b) Nanoparticle gold might be trapped by the alveoli. However Nanoparticle gold is much smaller (by definition 10-10000 times smaller) than
the size typically associated with causing lung problems. At the smaller end of this scale (where this research occurred) they are absorbed through the alveoli into blood. So lung issues are a bit unlikely.
c) In blood, Gold Nanoparticle contrast agents are available for mice and probably soon enough men.
d) From the FDA passing of the products in c) people know that gold is excreted and not stored.
This evidence is by no means water tight and I won't be doing a gold nanoparticle joint any time soon. Still it is hardly worth stressing about right how especially given the nasty particulates and nanoparticels that any engine pumps out.
Also I seriously doubt it would be economical viable to recover the gold. It would be almost impossible whilst ensuring the nanoparticles distribution remains constant so you could only resell by weight of normal gold. Added to that recovering and reforming nanoparticles outside a lab is not trivial, lots would be lost in the process ie for burning it would be carried away in the smoke.
You talking about an awful lot of nanoparticle gold (or dollars) in trees to make it worth harvesting. Someone might steal a gold doped bonsai tree out of a lab but thats about it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a type of interferometry as they don't measure phase-shifts directly. They measure the diffraction pattern and infer the phase-shifts that would result in such an image. Basically measuring the Fraunhofer diffraction pattern and computationally reconstructing a sample that would create such a pattern.
As such if the sample was a plane normal to the electron beam they would see nothing in this method. The imaging is not done in the Fourier domain thou the reconstruction can be if you prefer. For the imaging it is merely a standard electron imaging array which is why on their webpage they can show "The [diffraction] image before it is reconstructed using a computer"
You don't actually need a lens for phase constrast measurement. That is why it is possible to do exactly this method for hard X-rays for which reasonable lens don't exist. See the following for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09419.html
Electron imaging is only possible in vacuum and delivers massive doses typically to microscopic samples. So I doubt it will replace medical CAT or MRI scans any time soon.
Basically what they have done is phase contrast transmission electron imaging. This is quite an achievement in itself and well done to them. However they most certainly did not invent this "technique" (and I doubt they actually claimed that). The method is well known from X-ray phase contrast imaging research.
They even wrote this: "The technique is applicable to microscopes using any type of wave and has other key advantages over conventional methods. For example, when used with visible light, the new technology forms a type of image that means scientists can see living cells very clearly without the need to stain them, a process which usually kills the cells."
Em, yes but optical phase-contrast is damn well established. O and Frits Zernike who got the Nobel prize for doing exactly this in 1953 might be pissed off.
Wrong! You can infer the phase by measuring the deflection angle due to the phase-shift. Naturally this doesn't work for normal angles of incident but the images are still dramatically improved.
Unmistakable, really? It might interest you to know a crucial part of the UK process is using obvious decoys.
Sounds exactly like 1955s project Orion. And similarily to it I don't think they can actually legally work on this idea due to international nuclear regulation. In particular the comprehensive test ban treaty. Because after all what you are designing is something very like an icbm with a "dirty" warhead. I god damn guarantee if Iran openly worked on this the US would bust itself to attack ASAP.
It is indeed the latter for the reason given above. The dose or ionizing damage is actually much smaller. The cross section or likelihood of interaction/damage decreases quickly with energy according to http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/tissue.html
"So, if there was not Steve Jobs, do you really think we had now affordable music for download?"
... where is it?"
Yes it was heading that way for a long time. As it got easier to post and share media (even as Apple fought against it with DRM and the locking of itunes accounts to a few computers) the media producers needed to respond. Banning technology simply doesn't work in the long run. Hence they basically had to lower the effort hurdles to buying music legally. Given they already were in nearly all high streets and were advertising intensively on TV really on-line with a simple interface was the only way. I doubt this could have went down any other way.
"Multi touch gestures?"
No clearly no one would ever have thought of that it's a world changing thought. Not the natural human manipulation style at all and definitely something that should have been granted a sweeping patent stopping others implementing this quite easily achieved feature.
"Nearly everything he did (or bought and used, like the gUI, mouse etc.) in principle could have been done by anyone. But he did it, the others did not. Unix on the Desktop
He also did the Apple Lisa, Apple TV, the touchWheel-less iPod Shuffle, Final Cut Pro X, Ping, Pippin, iPod Photo etc
O and "anyone" is only anyone with the vast resources of Apple not least of which is their incredibly aggressive legal team. So no individual or even small company can compete in the same arena as Apple as their fans often religiously only buy Apple, no matter the costs or quality. Plus Apple's legal team can will tie the smaller company up in pointless legal cases until they run out of money.
"Do you really think Android would exist if there was no iOS?"
Yes as phone technology improved it was inevitable that OSes would start to appear to allow more integrated control of the hardware. Everyone knew that long before the iPhone, look at the 2003 interview in BusinessWeek with Android's Rubin.
"Apple always in one sense was conservative, not going to the limit some developers envisioned, but also always pushed standards and limits. E.g. the "retina display", firewire, removing the floppy etc. etc. Every singel thing Steve Jobs "introduced" for it self is not much. But the combination off all them together is."
They certainly are conservative. That's because they generally implement what is basically available elsewhere and then polish the UI up. Look at your own example of "Unix on the Desktop". Admittedly that in itself is actually a very good thing but when they sell and promote it as if it's something they alone invented last Wednesday that's pretty nasty. It is also annoying to people that have been using similar products for months/years, its spectacularly annoying if the Apple announcement gets greeted by a bunch of people bowing in reference and chanting about their genius they are so much inventive than anyone else.
Jobs was a very good CEO, end of line.
Yip I was thinking that. I always considered it a PC strength that they had diversity and competition in models and makes. Slightly amused at this aspect being portrayed as a weakness. It's horses for courses, no? Focusing consumer choice and well defined product ranges is all very well. But ultimately it all boils down to telling people "no, you don't want that you want this".
Your totally right you should not infer safety from "no data available". But to be fair their are some good reasons to assume "Nanoparticle" gold might be safe.
a) Macroscopic gold is bioinvert. Which is why markers of it are often implanted in tumors to aid tumor visualization in radiotherapy.
b) Nanoparticle gold might be trapped by the alveoli. However Nanoparticle gold is much smaller (by definition 10-10000 times smaller) than the size typically associated with causing lung problems. At the smaller end of this scale (where this research occurred) they are absorbed through the alveoli into blood. So lung issues are a bit unlikely.
c) In blood, Gold Nanoparticle contrast agents are available for mice and probably soon enough men.
d) From the FDA passing of the products in c) people know that gold is excreted and not stored.
This evidence is by no means water tight and I won't be doing a gold nanoparticle joint any time soon. Still it is hardly worth stressing about right how especially given the nasty particulates and nanoparticels that any engine pumps out.
Also I seriously doubt it would be economical viable to recover the gold. It would be almost impossible whilst ensuring the nanoparticles distribution remains constant so you could only resell by weight of normal gold. Added to that recovering and reforming nanoparticles outside a lab is not trivial, lots would be lost in the process ie for burning it would be carried away in the smoke. You talking about an awful lot of nanoparticle gold (or dollars) in trees to make it worth harvesting. Someone might steal a gold doped bonsai tree out of a lab but thats about it.