Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday January 12 2017, @08:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the k-i-s-s dept.

From the paper in Nature Biomedical Engineering:

In a global-health context, commercial centrifuges are expensive, bulky and electricity-powered, and thus constitute a critical bottleneck in the development of decentralized, battery-free point-of-care diagnostic devices. Here, we report an ultralow-cost (20 cents), lightweight (2 g), human-powered paper centrifuge (which we name 'paperfuge') designed on the basis of a theoretical model inspired by the fundamental mechanics of an ancient whirligig (or buzzer toy; 3,300 BC). The paperfuge achieves speeds of 125,000 r.p.m. (and equivalent centrifugal forces of 30,000 g), with theoretical limits predicting 1,000,000 r.p.m. We demonstrate that the paperfuge can separate pure plasma from whole blood in less than 1.5 min, and isolate malaria parasites in 15 min. We also show that paperfuge-like centrifugal microfluidic devices can be made of polydimethylsiloxane, plastic and 3D-printed polymeric materials. Ultracheap, power-free centrifuges should open up opportunities for point-of-care diagnostics in resource-poor settings and for applications in science education and field ecology.

The lead inventor, Manu Prakash, is the recipient of a MacArthur "genius grant", and deservedly so. He also has an elegant portal web page on the Stanford site.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:29PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:29PM (#453074) Journal

    Um, I don't think you know how genius works.

    First you find someone who invented something that works. Then you steal it while you're unimportant. Then you sell it for a lot of money. Then you use your newfound money to legally outmaneuver the original inventor.

    It worked for Steve Jobs. It worked for Bill Gates. It worked amazingly for Thomas Edison on multiple occasions. It worked for Alexander Graham Bell.

    I'm sorry if you're an engineer who spends years of his life developing important incremental improvements on things, you just don't have the sheer genius it takes to engage in unrepentant intellectual thievery.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:12PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:12PM (#453088)

    While I agree with your sentiment, the one thing that sets a "genius" apart is just one thing: they are recognized. Spending a lifetime making incremental improvements makes you a good engineer and a good person, but not a genius. The genius is the one who finds incremental improvement #539, recognizes that because of that improvement something really elegant is suddenly possible that wasn't before, and popularizes that invention. It doesn't mean they worked for it; they probably didn't. But without them, only engineers would ever have nice toys (and they'd be more expensive for the engineers too).

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:20PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:20PM (#453092) Journal

      Oh, no, the inventors overwhelmingly know their inventions are useful.

      The shitheads pretty much always just win a race to sell it at the right moment. Hell, the courts can even recognize that you stole the exact design from someone else, as with the Swan lightbulb, and just a dash more bullshittery can suddenly end the "Ediswan" company and give everything they own to the "Edison" company.

      I just feel the overwhelming need to fight the "genius" myth when I see it now. It's a crock of shit.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:18PM (#453116)

        Exactly that, the people who get the credit are often not deserving and almost always other people contributed a lot of work. It should be: MacArthur "inventor grant", but that doesn't sound as flashy. Who would buy tickets to THAT dinner?

      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:38PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:38PM (#453120)

        "Useful" is not the same thing as "revolutionary". "Know" is not the same thing as "popularize". All that I'm saying is that these "shitheads" perform a useful social utility, even though they didn't do nearly as much real work as somebody that didn't get the credit.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?