If you are looking at imaging methods, I'd suggest pursuing phased
arrays. You can get sub-wavelength resolution out of the phasing and
depending how it's made (freq-phasing, phase-angle phasing, amplitude
phasing, etc) can get the ability to view/control variable size
objects instead of having to focus on a single target molecule.
Phased arrays are going to be huge when they are properly utilized
within the medical industry (with what would probably be a
supercomputer today running one) - but there seems to be little work
on it at the moment, you can definitely see the start in dumb-rf (for
lack of a better term) forms of cancer treatment utilizing metallic
nano-particles and what is more or less an induction coil to burn out
the cells. With enough precision (ie: more nodes, more computing
power, vastly greater cost) you could image and manipulate living
cells in real time (conductivity of ion pathways, affinity for
particular chemical reactions in a region, heating/cooling, etc). Of
course, if you are trying to get something done with it in the
immediate future, phased arrays probably aren't the way to go - I
started on one about a year ago and got side tracked on building new
super-capacitors (having done so because I found a way to make better
ones while trying to cut the costs of a 210KVA power supply to well
under the $10-$15k it would cost just in iron if I were to hand-make
the transformers). In a DIY sense, there's a lot to be done to get
phased arrays into an attainable realm, mainly in power supplies and
broadband phase-shifters (everything else is relatively cheap per
component, but increases in cost with the number of nodes). Didn't
mean to get too off-topic here, but RF is a pretty cool subject - it's
kind of sad the greatest modern use of it is in telecommunication.
On Jan 2, 6:55 pm, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:38 PM, John Griessen <j...@industromatic.com> wrote:
> > On 01/02/2012 12:41 PM, Simon Quellen Field wrote:
>
> >> Suppose we made a strongly polar molecule that was fairly large in
> >> comparison
> >> to other strongly polarized molecules in the body (a small peptide is
> >> large in
> >> comparison to water, for example). We build it so that it changes its
> >> length in
> >> response to something we want to measure (some gene expression or siRNA,
> >> or
> >> maybe just oxygen levels). Now it will resonate at a different radio
> >> frequency
> >> when the levels of that target change.
>
> >> We already do this with light. An acid-base indicator is a large molecule
> >> that
> >> resonates at a particular frequency (say that of blue light) in a basic
> >> solution,
> >> but resonates at a different frequency (red light) in an acid. Making the
> >> molecule
> >> larger shifts the frequency lower
>
> > Good thinking Simon. Like it. Would be nice to open hardware something
> > like that
> > because it is the classic instrument that makes something invisible become
> > visible.
>
> > And it seems novel to me...
>
> We may have touched on this before, but this seems very close to
> bio-telecommunication...
>
>
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "DIYbio" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
> --
> Nathan McCorkle
> Rochester Institute of Technology
> College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment