SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:20PM
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
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
"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?