Slashdot Log In
Caltech Shows Off a Lensless, Miniaturized Microscope
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jul 30, 2008 01:52 PM
from the perfect-for-underwater-philately dept.
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.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Argh (Score:3, Informative)
It's "Caltech", not "Cal Tech".
Re:Argh (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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Berkeley Breathed [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
It should actually be "The correct spelling of Berkley[sic] is Berkeley."
Your statement was a sentence fragment.
Ok, not really, but I was just continuing (beating) the joke (dead horse).
Incorrect size comparison (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but what is a quarter worth these days. A dime!
Re: (Score:2)
It appears we were referring to two different pictures. The first link compares the device to a US dime, the second link compares it to a US quarter. I didn't read the first link because it went to a blog (which are typically useless when more direct sources are available.)
=Smidge=
Image splicing (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
you could probably create a embedded device to store the raw data, then analyze it later - like back at the lab.
It wouldn't give immediate results, but it would remove the necessity to take lots of samples back to a lab for microscope slide preparation.
Washington Quarter Noses (Score:4, Funny)
How many Washington quarter noses will fit in a Library of Congress?
Could they have just used millimeters?
Re:Washington Quarter Noses (Score:5, 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!
Parent
Re:Washington Quarter Noses (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!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Size is an instantly relatable thing though. "About the size of a house" vs. "about the size of a cat" gives you instant context. You could also give me cubic meters, but would that translate as well? Also, by placing something that's of referenced size (like a quarter!) in a photo, you can assure viewers have a sense of scale no matter if the photo's resolution changes (and thus making rulers with markings not visible, etc). A quarter will be recognizable if the photo is compressed, loses its caption,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, and it was mislabeled in the caption. Would anyone have caught the error if only the caption specified the size in centimeters, and it was accidentally doubled?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know what's also an instantly relatable unit?
Centimeters!
Oh, and by the way:
I live in Germany you insensitive clod!
Fine, we could also publish the size in units of Weisswurst.
Stopping cancer... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, it's quantum cancer: Observing it forces it out of its metastable state and destroys it.
Prior Art (Score:2)
Mentioned in a short story by Isaac Asimov, 'anopticon' Was featured in the short story "Anniversary" the sequel to "Marooned off Vesta"
This device was a microscope, and a telescope with no lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
we already have radio telescopes without lenses - it is just a sensor matrix. With software you can pick which direction to look in. The problem with scaling it to visible wavelengths is that no material we know of can oscillate at those frequencies. People ARE working on meta-materials to allow negative indexes of refraction, though.
Theoretically a negative indexes of refraction would allow the creation of a flat "lens" with no resulting aberrations. Of course, the "lens" would have to be infinitely large
Re: (Score:2)
Examples? And blatantly wrong about history (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
Guh?!? Very little change?
Electron microscope- 1931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope [wikipedia.org]
Phase contrast-1930's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_contrast_microscopy [wikipedia.org]
Fluorescence microscopy- I don't know but well after the 16th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_microscopy [wikipedia.org]
Confocal microscopy- 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_microscopy [wikipedia.org]
2 photon microscopy-1960?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_excitation_microscopy [wikipedia.org]
Total internal reflection fluorescence microscope- also don't know, at least after fluorescence microscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection_fluorescence_microscope [wikipedia.org]
Inverted microscope- I don't know, but not too old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_microscope [wikipedia.org]
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 [az-microscope.on.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Something that the article left out and I think is an interesting applcication is that it would work well with UV and X-ray sources. It is difficult to make optics that don't block these short wavelengths.
CORRECTION: they did provide examples (Score:4, 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.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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 [az-microscope.on.ca]
Except, perhaps, a hand-held magnifying lens!
Your list left off a few important advances ...
SEM vs TEM (you mentioned electron microscope, but they're very different beasts)
Darkfield microscopes.
Atomic force microscopes.
Tomographic microscopes (although I suppose confocals are as good an example of this class as any)
X-ray diffraction microscopes.
Gigapixel microscopes (very new approaches to making high resolution images that span macroscopic dimensions).
Serial electron microscopes.
Near-field optical microsc
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know, given all the progress in microscopes I wasn't going to list all the different types that had been invented since Antony van Leeuwenhoek first looked at his sperm (which was obtained "fresh and not sinfully," so Mrs. van Leeuwenhoek deserves some credit there too.)
That said, I can't belive I forgot AFM! A microscope based on touch is a revolution. I did think about SEM vs TEM, but only after I had already posted, and I think the wiki article probably mentioned both.
Gigapixel microscopy I h
Re: (Score:2)
Gigapixel microscopy I haven't heard of. I'm assuming it's taking multiple pictures though?
That's it. It's a technique that's so new that it doesn't have a fully accepted name yet (I'm just on the fringes of the field, so I might be a few months out of date). The idea was developed for electron microscopy, but could be easily adapted to light microscopy as well: put an automated stage in the beampath so that the sample can be shifted from place to place and a high resolution image captured at each stopping point, and then computationally stitch the tiles together. Sounds relatively straightfor
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Atomic Force Microscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscope [wikipedia.org]
Would it be... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't that be a picoscope?
It *HAS* a lens! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
lens means 'bends light'
There is no light bending going on here. You could use x-rays with this new technique without any difficulty.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be a dweeb.
A lens is an optical device with perfect or approximate axial symmetry which transmits and refracts light, converging or diverging the beam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics) [wikipedia.org]
Where's the pictures? (Score:4, Insightful)
I expected a new microscope to have some pictures to show...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like I clicked on the other two links... (Score:2)
Didn't click on the one with the images.
I expected *any* article about new microsocopes to have a sample but apparently only one out of three feels the necessity.
My bad.
Forget Natalie Portman (Score:2)
Microscope Design in Public Domain (Score:2)
Not quite the same as the article but close. Thought about this some time ago. Before some gomer patent troll patents this, here is the general idea in kit form to get it in the public domain.
Take a board video camera and remove the lens assembly to expose the imaging surface on the chip. Assume your specimen is on a standard microscope slide with a cover glass. Turn slide over and place cover glass in contact with imaging surface on CCD chip. Shine light thru the microscope slide and view image on vid
I totally expected (Score:2)
Beamforming? (Score:2)
Seems to me this is just generic beamforming or synthetic aperature.
The idea is that a small object is sent down a micro-fluidic channel which passes over an array of sensors that take a repetitive sequence of "pictures" of it as it slowly moves down the channel (each of the M sensor takes say N pictures). All the "pictures" are later re-assembled as if they were taken at the same time with very small spatial displacement (instead of far apart in space and time). If you know the constant velocity V of the
Re:Practical Applications (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.
Parent
Re:Practical Applications (Score:5, Funny)
hmm but if they also go after excess fat cells I just might make a deal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not as dark and damp.
Re:Practical Applications (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
if you're looking for rouge cancer cells to zap then this would not prove effective.
I imagine differentiating between rouge and red would be very difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of applications for a $10 fluid microscope chip.
- Restaurants. You could pour a few drops of your soup, or drink, or meat juice, into your cell phone gadget and it will tell you if there are nasty critters.
- Hospitals. Medical workers can do preliminary blood screenings at admission time--just do a thumb prick, and get a urine sample, and they can discover proteins, various microbes, cell counts (perhaps). This info can go right into the (electronic) chart before the patient has even finis
Autonomous screening (Score:2)
About the autonomous part...
What kind of autonomous pathogen detection systems do we have today?
I am not talking about strip tests [acs.org].
I am thinking more in a way of pattern recognition system plugged into a digital microscope, combined with a database of say.. known bacteria.
Sounds to me that building something like that should be a logical practical application from the moment we managed to strap a digital camera to a microscope.
With an "on a chip" microscope for 10$, I wonder... Shouldn't someone be working
Re: (Score:2)
A microscope that can isolate cancer cells - all on its own - no nanotechnology needed?
And if the microscope is implanted in the human body, what are we looking at? Is it going to incorporate some transmitter to communicate with doctors? I don't know, this "autonomous" thing sounds really far fetched to me.
Re: (Score:2)
And me without a bottle of Martian jabra water...
Re:Caltech not Cal Tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Calcutta Technical Institute is a fine school.
Parent