Microscopic microscope could fit on cellphones, cost just $10

Make no mistake, microscopes have been getting increasingly smaller for years, but a team of CalTech researchers have leapfrogged previous efforts by creating one minuscule enough to fit on a cellphone. The microscopic optofluidic microscope could one day be used in third-world nations to "analyze blood samples for malaria or check water supplies for giardia and other pathogens," and given that it could theoretically be mass produced for around $10, cost shouldn't be too much of a hindrance. Changhuei Yang, credited for developing the chip, is currently chatting it up with biotech companies in order to get this to the market, but there's no word yet on any takers.

[Via Physorg]

[andres @ Jul 30th 2008 3:31AM]

i doubt this will show up in any phone in the states. just because they can doesnt mean they will.

[Josh @ Jul 30th 2008 11:56AM]

Cellphones are coming up with new things all the time. Pico projectors is the new trend as you can read at http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=526&doc_id=149846&f_src=flffour

If it could detach it would be nice, so you can see the buttons on the cellphone.

[Maurik @ Jul 30th 2008 3:45AM]

It doesn't need to go in a phone per se, but it would be fun to have a cheap ish €50 microscope you could look at water, blood, cell samples with.

[nDee @ Jul 30th 2008 4:36AM]

Your next phone can magnify those cracks on others' iPhones

[neofolklore @ Jul 30th 2008 7:35AM]

lol , i just commented on that article

[tekdroid @ Jul 30th 2008 4:46AM]

Please may I have a microscope in my next mobile phone. Thank you.

[Phil Perman @ Jul 30th 2008 6:11AM]

So, its a microscope so small that you need a normal microscope to look at it? Nice :p

[CresseyChaos @ Jul 30th 2008 6:25AM]

"...could one day be used in third-world nations..."

Sounds handy, but starving third-world citizens don't normally own mobiles.

[BratPAQ @ Jul 30th 2008 7:04AM]

if you would for once read about 3rd world nation, you'd find out that a 3rd world nation is the text capital of the world. go ahead and google it.

[Cresseychaos @ Jul 30th 2008 8:44AM]

It was only a joke BratPAQ, bad taste maybe, but just a joke.

I just liked the imagery of starvin' Marvin' with an iPhone

[Janek @ Jul 30th 2008 7:25AM]

Super idea to 2d bar code. on poststamp I can wrote one mp3 file!

[Erik @ Jul 30th 2008 1:00PM]

Wtf?

[andres @ Jul 30th 2008 1:24PM]

you can record how to properly use present tense.

[kamu @ Aug 1st 2008 7:52AM]

Give him a break. He clearly isn't a native English speaker.

What he means is writing microscopic barcodes that can then be read by the microscope.

Is a cool idea, but how would you print the barcodes :) Your ordinary desk jet will not be able to get that accurate.

[Wwhat @ Jul 30th 2008 8:35AM]

You know the first microscope was tiny too, all you need is a glass bead on a small metal plate to hold it, so basically they just added a cell-phone camera sensor to such a primitive microscope which is not handy for 3rd world use since it requires batteries and access to recharging capabilities, and display devices when if you want to go lowcost you might as well just use the more modern cheap 'for manual use' designed ones and use the eyeball to look at stuff.
This is better describes as an interesting tool to teach people/students about the microscopic world as they go along.

[randombloke @ Aug 1st 2008 7:07AM]

Except that many third world nations skipped the land-line phase completely and went straignt to mobiles along with the infrastructure to support them, such as electricity.

Also, "the first microsope" was not tiny at all; Gallileo (and possibly the Jansens) created the first microscope around 1600 - both compound glass microscopes which can't be tiny. And the tiny glass bead scope you refer to doesn't have zoom/variable mag.

Finally, "small enough to fit in mobile phone" is not the same as "will only ever be put in a mobile phone" - these devices will be fitted to dedicated instrumentation before mobiles.

[Wwhat @ Aug 1st 2008 5:34PM]

The infrastucture is there only for those (few) that can afford it and certainly not in every place either.

About the history, those compound microscopes could only achieve a magnification of 20 or so times, whereas the one developed by antoni van leeuwenhoek which used a single lens that was particularly well ground could achieve 200 times or even 275 times enlargement, quite a significant difference and advantage.

But you are right in that the researchers see it as a instrument not a gadget, I quote:
"The platform into which the chip is integrated can vary depending upon the needs of the user. For example, health workers in rural areas could carry cheap, compact models to test individuals for malaria, and disposable versions could be carried into the battlefield."

(Trust americans to think of a use in a battlefield when developing a microscope eh..)

He does mention cellphones though:
"The whole thing is truly compact--it could be put in a cell phone--and it can use just sunlight for illumination, which makes it very appealing for Third-World applications," says Changhuei Yang, assistant professor of electrical engineering

[G @ Jul 30th 2008 11:57AM]

Am I the only one that thinks this would be really awesome for when you're tripping out?

[Wwhat @ Jul 30th 2008 8:13PM]

Might be used to test the purity of drugs at the sales point?

[Jamie @ Jul 30th 2008 12:13PM]

coupled with the right network and application, this could facilitate faster acquisition of samples used to research virus mutation and various pathogen outbreaks

[DESTOS @ Jul 30th 2008 12:35PM]

Could they develop a microscope so small, it couldn't see itself?

[guybrush @ Jul 30th 2008 1:14PM]

Why is it that most people seem to have a complete inability to spell Caltech correctly? I know spelling and grammar aren't really of great importance on this site, but the misspelling of Caltech is something that I find in books (the science kind). It is "Caltech" not CalTech or Cal Tech, capital C, lowercase t, one word. You would think that you wouldn't have to attend to be able to spell it. And people certainly don't seem to have any trouble spelling MIT.

[Dualboot @ Jul 30th 2008 2:18PM]

Thanks for beating me to it. If you can't spell it correctly, use CIT, that works too.

[guybrush @ Jul 30th 2008 2:40PM]

I'm pretty sure CIT doesn't work (at least I think that is what the little T says). It is either "Caltech" or "California Institute of Technology" or for some just simply "Tech" (though that last one gets confusing when around people from other "Tech"s, MIT, Virginia Tech, etc.).

[Wwhat @ Jul 30th 2008 8:18PM]

Since it's a combination of cal(ifornia intitute of) tech(nology) I'd use CalTech if left to my own devices since that makes sense.
And since the whole use of CalTech rather than the full name is an informal way of doing things it seems silly to get upset about it and proclaim some grand right way and only way to write it.