News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by frozenport on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:03PM (#7380085)
This is a hole. You can do the same thing with a coke cap and a bright light. Also notice that the work wasn't published in a scientific journal.

As somebody who works in optics this is the most infuriating thing I have seen in a while.

ITS A BLOODY HOLE.

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by auxon0 on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @09:02AM (#7385278)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1211

"Although it costs less than a dollar in parts (see Bill of Materials in table 1), it can provide over 2,000X magnification with submicron resolution, weighs less than two nickels (8.8 g), is small enough to fit in a pocket (70 × 20 × 2 mm3), requires no external power, and can survive being dropped from a 3-story building or stepped on by a person (see figure 1G and supplementary video 2)."

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by tedsanders on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:13PM (#7380184)
It's not just a hole. There is a ball lens that provides 140x magnification. The lens can be translated in the x, y, and z directions. To me, that's deFinitely a microscope.

Why are you so infuriated?

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by mhb on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @12:20PM (#7380227)
He's infuriated because, despite the hype, the TED talk and the Gates funding, it's not clear why this is better than other simple microscopes which can be made for even less money. Also, why does it need to be so cheap? Not everyone in a poor community needs one of these. Surely they could buy/receive a more conventional instrument and share it.
Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by tedsanders on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @02:21PM (#7381124)
"other simple microscopes that can be made for even less money"

What microscopes are cheaper? It seems incredibly hard to beat this on price without sacrificing a lot of magnification or durability.

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by mhb on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @03:06PM (#7381445)
By trading off field of view, eye relief, brightness and aberrations you can get any arbitrary magnification by sticking in a different sized plastic ball lens. Just like all the 500x junk telescopes that are sold.

Given all the attention this is getting, I have to conclude that I'm missing a critical element of what makes this notable. I get that it's very cheap and can be stepped on, but maybe you can explain the application for this that wouldn't be better served by the shared use of a more conventional design made out of plastic instead of paper and which could still survive rough handling.

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by tedsanders on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @04:43PM (#7381972)
The paper vs plastic issue is unimportant, in my opinion. In fact, the latest designs I've seen are made of polypropylene sheets instead of paper sheets.

I think the critical element is that it's cheap to build and ship.

Again, what microscopes do you know of that are cheaper?

Re:Stanford bioengineer develops a 50-cent paper microscope by frozenport on Tuesday March 11, 2014 @09:54PM (#7383479)
I do like one thing, this has the potential to inspire kids about optics. I sure would have loved to have one growing up!

These point of care services aren't limit by the cost of the microscope, they are limited by staff and the cost of histology. Most of the scopes I see at the clinic are cheap brightfield ones used to look at stained specimens, and are kept as backups when the Beckman-Colter machine fails. Can your microscope distinguish white blood cell morphology? Working with live cell imaging you learn that red-blood cells are evil because they carry no detail and little information, they are trivial to see and deconvolve. You can see relevant features even if you are beyond the diffraction limit, but then again you need those fancy slides that spread the cells out so that you can inspect them one-by-one.

I see no new science and an attempt to address non-existent problems and seems way out of touch with the needs of medical staff. The test for malaria looks something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/PLDH_Mala... http://www.csinnovation.com.sg/upload_files/8/Anti_Malaria_H...

tldr: We knew you could do this hundreds of years ago, it won't change the world because it didn't then.