Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stanford Bioengineer Develops a 50-cent Paper Microscope

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the check-out-those-microbes dept.

Medicine 83

An anonymous reader writes "Scope: A Stanford bioengineer has developed an ultra-low-cost print-and-fold microscope and is now showing others how to make one themselves. The 50-cent lightweight, paper 'Foldscope' — which 'can be assembled in minutes, [and] includes no mechanical moving parts' — was designed to aid disease diagnosis in developing regions." The paper describing the design is on arXiv, and a video demoing the microscope is attached below.

cancel ×

83 comments

Lenses too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46450941)

Paper lenses would be a neat trick.

Re:Lenses too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46450969)

Cheap spherical glass beads will work as the lens. These are far cheaper to make than a fancy pants lens.

Re:Lenses too? (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 months ago | (#46450989)

The one shown in the video uses pinhole projection.

Re:Lenses too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451461)

Depends on the frequency I guess. You can make lenses out of wax for microwaves...

Resin lenses ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 5 months ago | (#46452191)

Talking about lenses ... has anyone invented lenses made from clear resin ?

Resins are cheap and easy to mould. It shouldn't be too hard to make lenses out of resins.

Plus there are some types of resins with the ability to absorb/refract part of the light frequencies, making them suitable to become "light filter", filtering out part of the light spectrum.

Re:Resin lenses ? (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 5 months ago | (#46453629)

Of course. Check your closest piece of optical equipment and see if it brags about being aspherical. In that case, it probably contains resin lens elements.

Re:Resin lenses ? (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about 5 months ago | (#46454445)

Not just resin. We have been molding glass aspherical lenses for sometime with high precision and relatively cheaply. You would need a fairly largish aspheric for it to be ground these days, and even then they probably start by molding it first.

Not entirely made out of paper, of course. (4, Informative)

Rhymoid (3568547) | about 5 months ago | (#46450951)

FTA:

The Foldscope design accommodates different optical configurations, including spherical ball lenses, spherical micro-lens doublets (such as a Wollaston doublet), and more complex assemblies of aspheric micro-lenses.

Can you roll a doobue with it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46450965)

A real small one?

Summary of Thread (4, Funny)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46450987)

1. It will never work.
2. Big fuckin deal. Made one myself over breakfast last week.
3. Biology is a worthless major.
4. At least 68 replies starting with the word "Actually"
5. This is proof there's no God.
6. Shut up teabagger
7. Fuck beta
8. I'm competing to be the world's biggest talking penis
9. Four PhDs? No wonder you're a dumbfuck
10. Someone dropped a bulldozer on your car? The problem is you.

Re:Summary of Thread (4, Funny)

bob_super (3391281) | about 5 months ago | (#46451031)

11. Useless because I can't use it to do heart surgery or Si lithography
12. Will be destroyed by a patent from Big Optics
13. How many bitcoins?

Re:Summary of Thread (1)

John Bokma (834313) | about 5 months ago | (#46451213)

14. In xxx microscope develops you And I think "last week" in #2 should be "10 years ago" ;-)

Re:Summary of Thread (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46451605)

15. How often do we get to hear about it? I read about it on $otherpage $time ago.

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451683)

16. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

Re:Summary of Thread (4, Funny)

drkim (1559875) | about 5 months ago | (#46452147)

17. Oblig. XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/860/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46452977)

You all forgot the best one.

18. Why are they wasting money on this instead of curing cancer?

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46454363)

18. Oblig. Far Side:
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/82/f4/7d/82f47d72afa03dc058eb0c0679f20b14.jpg

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46454381)

18. Oblig. Far Side:
Far Side Cartoon [pinimg.com]

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46452281)

40 years ago, apparently. There's at least one "we did this in the 70s" already.

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451269)

...you forgot "smug hipster irrelevantly commenting about other comments before they are commented."

Which, of course, has never been done before.

Re:Summary of Thread (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 5 months ago | (#46451315)

1. It will never work.

Looks like someone's got the Mondays!

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451327)

Bah! 50 cent isn't worth 2 bits as a musician, but at least his paper microscope will do some good! :D

Re:Summary of Thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46452417)

#soylentNewsFTW

Re:Summary of Thread (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 5 months ago | (#46454253)

This is really the only Slashdot post I'll ever need again.

Re:Summary of Thread (1)

genner (694963) | about 5 months ago | (#46454579)

1. It will never work. 2. Big fuckin deal. Made one myself over breakfast last week. 3. Biology is a worthless major. 4. At least 68 replies starting with the word "Actually" 5. This is proof there's no God. 6. Shut up teabagger 7. Fuck beta 8. I'm competing to be the world's biggest talking penis 9. Four PhDs? No wonder you're a dumbfuck 10. Someone dropped a bulldozer on your car? The problem is you.

Well that covers everything. Get the lights on the way out.

Thank you come again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451015)

The fella is an indian . For you racist slashdotters .

Thank you come again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451339)

"The fella is an indian"

Indians are americans.

Re:Thank you come again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451359)

yeah yeah .. when its convenient they are ..

Re:Thank you come again (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46451379)

no, indians are from india the country on the indian continent, making them indians. You're lack of geographical knowledge pegs you as USian.

Re:Thank you come again (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451721)

No, indians are from India, the country on the Asian continent, making them indians. Your lack of geographical knowledge pegs you as USian.

FTFY.

Re:Thank you come again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46456073)

India, the country on the Eurasia continent. Where is the sea between Asia and Europe?

Concentrate on the optics, forget about the paper (1)

n7ytd (230708) | about 5 months ago | (#46451103)

This is very cool.
The magic and complexity seems to be all in the optic path; if they're forming a carrier tape with a special cavity to carry the lens, maybe they should focus (ha!) on also putting the LED on that carrier and controlling the dimensions of that small piece such it it can be held directly against a slide and remove the need for laser-cut paper and controlling the focal distance during folding and assembly of the paper. Then a reel of the optical "guts" could be produced and shipped.

But then again, I could just be a random stranger on the Internet talking out of my ass.

Re:Concentrate on the optics, forget about the pap (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46451725)

But then again, I could just be a random stranger on the Internet talking out of my ass.

You know who else talked out of his ass? Ace Ventura, pet detective.

How to get the lenses (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 5 months ago | (#46451109)

Where/how does one get the lenses ? The video looked like an ad .

Re:How to get the lenses (5, Insightful)

pz (113803) | about 5 months ago | (#46451305)

If you read the article (I know, I know) you'll learn that he uses industrial grit, also known as glass beads, which are tiny bits of glass that are reasonably spherical and ridiculously cheap. The quoted lens cost in the article is $0.17, but unless I'm misunderstanding something, like how special the grit is that he's using, or what kind of secondary selection process is required to pick out beads that will make good lenses, that should be closer to 0.17 cents, not 0.17 dollars.

Re:How to get the lenses (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 5 months ago | (#46453839)

If you read the article (I know, I know) you'll learn that he uses industrial grit

I think the questions on every Slashdotter's mind now are:

  1. Are the grits hot?
  2. Can I pour them down my pants?
  3. Where is Natalie Portman when you need her?

Re:How to get the lenses (1)

pz (113803) | about 5 months ago | (#46464623)

Feh. So the news article says he's using industrial grit. The presumably more authoritative arXiv paper states

Ball Lenses.
The ball lenses used in constructing Foldscopes included material types borosilicate, BK7 borosilicate, sapphire, ruby, and S-LAH79. The vendors included Swiss Jewel Co, Edmund Optics, and Winsted Precision Ball. Part numbers for some select lenses include: 300m sapphire lens from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.30S), 200m sapphire lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.20S), 2.4mm borosilicate lenses from Winsted Precision Ball (P/N 3200940F1ZZ00A0), 300m BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-0.30S), and 1.0mm BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-1.00). Note that half-ball lenses from both Edmund Optics and Swiss Jewel Co. were also tested for use as condenser lenses for the LEDs.

So they aren't exactly industrial grit, but very tiny lenses that look like they were originally intended for the telecommunications industry. The question of how does one get these lenses is answered by, "pick up the phone and call one of the listed suppliers who specialize in micro-spheres of clear, hard stuff."

Re:How to get the lenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46487405)

I read the arxiv.org article [arxiv.org] , and it says there that they are buying optical lenses:

Ball Lenses. The ball lenses used in constructing Foldscopes included material types borosilicate, BK7
borosilicate, sapphire, ruby, and S-LAH79. The vendors included Swiss Jewel Co, Edmund Optics, and
Winsted Precision Ball. Part numbers for some select lenses include: 300 [micrometer] sapphire lens from Swiss
Jewel Co. (Model B0.30S), 200 [micrometer] sapphire lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.20S), 2.4mm
borosilicate lenses from Winsted Precision Ball (P/N 3200940F1ZZ00A0), 300 [micrometer] BK7 borosilicate lenses
from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-0.30S), and 1.0mm BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co.
(Model BK7-1.00). Note that half-ball lenses from both Edmund Optics and Swiss Jewel Co. were also
tested for use as condenser lenses for the LEDs.

Note: I had to replace their abbreviation for micrometers because Slashdot support for Unicode totally sucks. I put square brackets around my change.

These sound like they are totally worth the $0.17 they cost... better than just "reasonably spherical". If you want a usable microscope at 2000x, you will need precision lenses.

Can build paper microscope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451279)

Can build paper microscope, but can't figure out how to master audio properly. The dialog is panned way left. Why are video editors so bad at audio?

Re:Can build paper microscope (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 5 months ago | (#46451335)

Can build paper microscope, but can't figure out how to master audio properly. The dialog is panned way left. Why are video editors so bad at audio?

I could tell you, but that would start a Windows versus OSX war.

Re:Can build paper microscope (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#46451385)

Are they? Maybe they're really good but laptop manufacturers are really bad at speaker placement?

Re:Can build paper microscope (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46451617)

'cause all the money they had went into the product and nothing was left for the PR department?

http://www.foldscope.com/ (4, Informative)

steveha (103154) | about 5 months ago | (#46451311)

They have a website devoted to this:

http://www.foldscope.com/ [foldscope.com]

And the news on the web site is that they will give away 10,000 of these to people who volunteer to test them. If you think you could do a good job of testing, maybe you should sign up.

http://www.foldscope.com/#/10ksignup/ [foldscope.com]

To me, the most impressive part is that he claims they have very accurate focusing. I believe he said "micron" focusing. I'm not sure how that works, but the paper is cut to a very accurate shape (the video showed some sort of computer-controlled cutter, it might even have been a laser cutter). By moving a tab I guess the paper can be made to flex predictably to focus the lens?

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451475)

To me, the most impressive part is that he claims they have very accurate focusing. I believe he said "micron" focusing. I'm not sure how that works, but the paper is cut to a very accurate shape (the video showed some sort of computer-controlled cutter, it might even have been a laser cutter).

The device being used to "draw" the lines *and* cut the paper in the video is an Epilog laser engraver [epiloglaser.com] . Hint: Not cheap (5-digit USD range).

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46451791)

If all you're going to do is cut paper, then a simple home-made laser cutter made from old inkjet printers and fitted with a Blu-ray diode would be more than enough.

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 5 months ago | (#46453339)

If you're making high-five-digit numbers of these microscopes - and the test run itself is into that range - that only raises the cost from $0.50 to $1.50.

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 5 months ago | (#46454549)

To me, the most impressive part is that he claims they have very accurate focusing. I believe he said "micron" focusing. I'm not sure how that works, but the paper is cut to a very accurate shape (the video showed some sort of computer-controlled cutter, it might even have been a laser cutter).

The device being used to "draw" the lines *and* cut the paper in the video is an Epilog laser engraver. Hint: Not cheap (5-digit USD range).

If you're making high-five-digit numbers of these microscopes - and the test run itself is into that range - that only raises the cost from $0.50 to $1.50.

Or, you go for the traditional printing press which you can use a standard offset print with die-cut and die-mark techniques. At 50,000 copies, this is an extremely cost-efficient way of making the things, uses no special technology (printing presses and die cutters are readily available at your bulk print shop).

We traditionally use them to produce the fancy boxes you see for packaging of products - boxes, displays, etc.

That's what makes this cool - there's no real fancy technology needed, and aside from minor setup costs, it's really, really, really efficient. The printers can even remove the excess paper, leaving you with just the cut out parts (though if you go this way, they can even nest the pieces so you can use a sheet roll of cardboard with very little waste).

Why use fancy laser cutters and such when the technology and means to mass produce them cheaply already exists?

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

davewoods (2450314) | about 5 months ago | (#46454777)

Why use fancy laser cutters and such when the technology and means to mass produce them cheaply already exists?

Because things need to be incredibly precise. I asked the same question initially, but there is no way I could ever cut the pieces out precisely enough to be usable, even with a precision knife (Exacto, etc)

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46480417)

Why use fancy laser cutters

Well, for one thing, they are still in the prototyping stage. It seems likely that when they get into the mass-production stage, someone will find a way to do without the laser cutter.

They did say cost of goods was around fifty cents. That's not including cost to manufacture. Currently an expensive laser cutter is involved and the microscope is assembled by hand, but I expect both of those to change when they start mass production.

Once mass production really gets going and cranking out these microscopes by the millions, maybe the entire cost including cost to manufacture will be about the same as the cost of goods now.

The real benefit is ... (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46451853)

Take this technology and make 50 cent eyeglasses for children in third world countries.

This idea is on to something!

Re:The real benefit is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46452737)

I think it is actually harder to make corrective glasses than a magnifying device out of tiny glass beads. Certainly it is harder to make custom glasses for each person's prescription rather than making a mass-produced gadget that does one thing.

Also, it's hard to think that corrective lenses are "the real benefit" compared to effective treatment of malaria. Malaria is pretty bad news.

Re:The real benefit is ... (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | about 5 months ago | (#46453621)

Yeah, but if you have corrective lenses, then you can see the malaria coming and get out of the way!

Re:The real benefit is ... (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 5 months ago | (#46457423)

Step 2 would have to be "flood the world with extra light", because a pinhole camera does a great job of focusing but doesn't bring in a lot of light.

That said... pinhole eyeglasses [wikipedia.org] are a real thing. They're mostly quackery, aimed at reducing the amount of light from a computer display screen and supposedly "strengthening the eye", but that's rubbish.

Re:The real benefit is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46485919)

These are not pinhole cameras. Whoever said that was mistaken.

If you go to arxiv.org and download their paper [arxiv.org] , you can read about the actual lenses. Here's the most relevant paragraph:

Ball Lenses. The ball lenses used in constructing Foldscopes included material types borosilicate, BK7
borosilicate, sapphire, ruby, and S-LAH79. The vendors included Swiss Jewel Co, Edmund Optics, and
Winsted Precision Ball. Part numbers for some select lenses include: 300 [micrometer] sapphire lens from Swiss
Jewel Co. (Model B0.30S), 200 [micrometer] sapphire lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.20S), 2.4mm
borosilicate lenses from Winsted Precision Ball (P/N 3200940F1ZZ00A0), 300 [micrometer] BK7 borosilicate lenses
from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-0.30S), and 1.0mm BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co.
(Model BK7-1.00). Note that half-ball lenses from both Edmund Optics and Swiss Jewel Co. were also
tested for use as condenser lenses for the LEDs.

Note: I had to replace their abbreviation for micrometers because Slashdot support for Unicode totally sucks. I put square brackets around my change.

Re:http://www.foldscope.com/ (1)

mattr (78516) | about 5 months ago | (#46452541)

800 NANOMETER resolution due to
fascinating optics holding a glass
sphere up to your eye can obtain
2000x magnification! Woohoo!
Check out the website and arxiv pdf.
He uses origami techniques to
structurally engineer the paper to
compensate for buckling among other things.
Awesomeness!

A tip of the hat to Leeuwenhoek. (4, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 5 months ago | (#46451345)

This is EXTREMELY cool. But it seems to me they might have given a tip of the hat to Antony van Leeuwenhoek, who developed spherical glass microscope lenses in the late 1600s. Well, I see their paper does: "Although the use of high-curvature miniature lenses traces back to Antony van Leeuwenhoek's seminal discovery of microbial life forms (8), manufacturing micro-lenses in bulk was not possible until recently."

Re:A tip of the hat to Leeuwenhoek. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451935)

I keep typing "man 8 microbial-life-forms" but I get nothing. I think you have the wrong man page number...

Re:A tip of the hat to Leeuwenhoek. (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 months ago | (#46454143)

That's probably in section 5.

Re:A tip of the hat to Leeuwenhoek. (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 5 months ago | (#46454443)

Try " apropos milf "

Why not put them out in schools ? (4, Interesting)

slincolne (1111555) | about 5 months ago | (#46451533)

The developing world chant always gets sympathy, but what about the potential benefit in schools ?

I can remember in school the problem getting accessed (more students than microscopes) and with these schools could give them to students.

Not only are they useful in class, but potentially they might get students interested in looking a the wider world!

It would also potentially drive someone to mass market them - laser cut them in school and fix in the lense (or worst case outsource the manufacturing to China)

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#46451611)

we did in the 70s, we made lenses out of glass rods melted to have bead with "thread" for mounting. and doesn't have the hassle of needing to put industrial grit into a tumbler to make polished spheres like this article's

I swear, I'm old enough to see shit get re-invented again and again, a little bit worse each iteration

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46451797)

Same goes for clothes, music, movies, TV shows, videogames.

I can't wait to play BurgerTime 2014: Revenge of the Pickles for the Playstation 5.

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46452273)

I think you misread that paragraph

These poppy-seed-sized lenses where originally mass produced in various sizes as an abrasive grit that was thrown into industrial tumblers to knock the rough edges off metal parts.

The lenses _were_ the grit, so I gather their production was significantly less effort than that...

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46453089)

we did in the 70s, we made lenses out of glass rods melted to have bead with "thread" for mounting. and doesn't have the hassle of needing to put industrial grit into a tumbler to make polished spheres like this article's

I swear, I'm old enough to see shit get re-invented again and again, a little bit worse each iteration

It's called "mass production", and it involves finding the most efficient and cheap way of producing a product that achieves the required task acceptably well. The complicated part in most current microscope manufacture is the glasswork. Melting your rods would have been relatively labour-intensive compared to using extremely mass produced spherical glass beads.

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#46470271)

nonsense, as soon as you invoke mass production the fact is extremely cheap real and *properly* shaped convex lenses can be made from glass for a penny a pop, that would exceed by far the abilities of this article's tumbled grit.

the article and its device make no sense, they're nonsense

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (5, Informative)

esten (1024885) | about 5 months ago | (#46451973)

but what about the potential benefit in schools ?

The kids do love them. And can assemble them by themselves.

I'm a Stanford PhD student and for an outreach organization Science Bus we actually worked with 2-5th graders locally to each build their own microscope to keep. The Foldscope works well and actually found the projection ability great in the classroom so that multiple students can see the same thing at once.

Re:Why not put them out in schools ? (1)

mattr (78516) | about 5 months ago | (#46452563)

If you woild read the site before
commenting you would see schools
are also targeted.
Of course it is mote important to
save lives though wouldn't you agree?

Developing countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46451679)

This microscope is sure to bring the warlords, kleptocrats and imams to heel.

I kept waiting until the end (1)

paiute (550198) | about 5 months ago | (#46452165)

That was one of the least satisfying technical videos I have seen lately. And tie your shoes, man.

Re:I kept waiting until the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46455327)

damn hippies...!!!??

This guy (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 5 months ago | (#46453061)

merits an engineering prize.

Re:This guy (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 5 months ago | (#46455333)

i read it as an engineering pizza. i am down for that

50 cents, per use.... (2)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 5 months ago | (#46453223)

“I wanted to make the best possible disease-detection instrument that we could almost distribute for free,”

And without any doubt.
Unless "3rd world" countries spend 50 cents to create a new one each time, those diseases will be distributed for free.

Re:50 cents, per use.... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 5 months ago | (#46453369)

I'm picturing you just waving your arms at your keyboard and slurring "cyniiicisssssm" here. You did actually read the article, yes? Oh, I can answer that: no, you didn't.

Re:50 cents, per use.... (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 5 months ago | (#46462755)

I'm picturing you just waving your arms at your keyboard and slurring "cyniiicisssssm" here. You did actually read the article, yes? Oh, I can answer that: no, you didn't.

cost = 50 cents
item = paper
Final Product = non-reusable
3rd world countries will be forced to reuse item = diseases transferred on paper

You dont even need to read the article to suss that out, its basic logic.

Incredible... but (1)

bmajik (96670) | about 5 months ago | (#46453403)

If the point is to look for pathogens in other peoples fluids...

well, I'm not real excited about holding the thing mm from my eye :)

(somehow having a giant metal/glass column as a buffer seems less creepy)

Very cool! Similar is a 3D printed one (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about 5 months ago | (#46453613)

using mirrors and lenses from disposable cameras:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thi... [thingiverse.com]

50 cents + tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46454317)

Sure the microscope is 50 cents.

But the tools to make it are probably closer to 50 thousand dollars.

Re:50 cents + tools (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 5 months ago | (#46454899)

So what?

You are distributing the microscope not the tools to make it.

I did! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46455125)

1.- Use $20 phone for actual phone calls
2.- Stop trying to impress people with the same bloated thing that everyone already has
3.- Use the pc at home, free pc lab in school and any pc I want at work

I invented a paper baseball bat (1)

dosun88888 (265953) | about 5 months ago | (#46456079)

Step 1: get a baseball bat
Step 2: wrap it with paper

Image of it in use (2)

Verdatum (1257828) | about 5 months ago | (#46456789)

I had to do far too much wandering about to find a simple image of the thing as it is to be used. Hope this helps someone: http://imgur.com/RzvY6nf [imgur.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...