The bee is even more impressive: https://superspl.at/view?id=ac0acb0e
"100% finer", who uses language like this? I don't even know what it means. How about "half the diameter"?
The necroprinter prints cancer.
peasants under technofeudalism don't really need those parts anyway, since we'll be evolving into vat people with brain chips soon in the new necropia
Not a problem for a dancer in a robot suit though.
Reminds me of the Metalocalypse on Christmas trees: "It's like having a rotting corpse in your house, but the corpse of a tree, you know? It's kind of baddass. It stands and then you humiliate it even further by hanging ornaments all over it,"
You can make anything metal if you try hard enough.
At these kinds of physical scales, biology is almost certainly a much larger market than mechanical applications. A 20 um line width (slightly less than one thou for US folks) is certainly a tolerance you might encounter on a drawing for subtractive manufacturing, but for addative, feature sizes that small will be strength limited.
Member sizes below the critical diameter for flaw-sensitivity are crucial to the hardness and durability of, for example, human teeth and limpet teeth, as well as the resilience of bone and jade. Nearly all metals, glasses, and ceramics are limited to a tiny percentage of their theoretical mechanical performance by flaw-sensitivity.
Laparoscopes that require smaller incisions are better laparoscopes. Ideally you could thread in a biopsy-needle instrument through a large vein to almost anywhere in the body.
Visible-light optical metamaterials such as negative-index lenses require submicron feature sizes.
I know a research group that is gluing battery-powered RFID transponders to honeybees.
Electrophoretic e-paper displays are orders of magnitude more power-hungry than hypothetical MEMS flip-dot displays. We just don't have an economical way to make those.
And of course MEMS gyroscopes, accelerometers, and DLP chips are already mass-market products.
There's still a lot of room at the bottom, even if EUV takes thetakes purely computational opportunities off the table.
> The ink used for the proof of extrusion demonstration is a ready-to-use, polyethylene oxide–based training bioink purchased and used directly from the vendor (Cellink Start, Cellink)
> The ink used for the honeycomb demonstration and the maple leaf demonstration is a sacrificial, temperature-sensitive, 40% (w/v) Pluronic F-127 in deionized water bioink purchased and used directly from the vendor (Pluronic F-127, Allevi).
> The ink used for the first cell-laden grid demonstration is Pluronic F-127 bioink with B16 cancer cells suspended in solution.
> The ink used for the second cell-laden grid demonstration is Pluronic F-127 bioink embedded with RBCs.
> The ink used for the cell viability experiments is Pluronic F-127 bioink with B16 cancer cells suspended in solution.
Tissue-printing type stuff, not plastic
Of course I suspect it will be the former but the latter is way funnier.
We've been stuck with these insects for a while. It would be so funny that the solution to get rid of them was in fact the same that wiped out many species before: over exploitation of natural resources.
Our most successful efforts at wiping out wild mosquitos, though, don't produce useful corpses. So I don't think it's particularly realistic for high industrial demand to lead to mosquito extinction anyway.
I mean for a printing nozzle with an inner diameter of 20 µm, how much material would be wasted if it was made out of plastic or metal? I get that no such nozzle is available and/or easily made, but shouldn't that be the point of the invention, rather than "yay, it's biodegradable so we save a microgram of plastic/metal"?
The university's marketing department has been instructed to emphasize sustainability in its press releases, and the website reporting it has, like most news organisations that have survived, made the choice not to hire journalists with critical thinking skills but to have them rephrase press releases.