New Developments at IBM in Zurich,
Switzerland have enabled researchers to take detailed single-molecule images.
The multinational team used a variation of Atomic Force Microscopy to produce
the first single-molecule images in 2009, however the new advancements make the
so clear that the types of atomic bonds are visible. Atomic Force Microscopy,
commonly known as AFM, uses a tiny tip to measure the contours of a surface.
Unlike the traditional electron microscope which only outputs a two dimensional
image, AFM is capable of producing 3-D images with greater clarity.
The new imaging opens up research in
microchip technology and uses for graphene. Graphene is a material that is only
one atom thick. The carbon atoms that hold graphene together are arranged in a
honeycomb crystal lattice. With further research, graphene can be used to
replace the traditional silicon semiconductor and create faster and smaller
processors, circuits, and ultracapacitors.
I thought this article was well
written and very informative. The author did a good job at explaining how the
new technology works and at providing insight to the research.
posted for R. Herrera
3 comments:
I thought this article summary about images of atomic bonds was very well done. One thing the writer excelled at was taking a very long and hard to understand topic and made it into a short and simple read. I also think did a good job at showing how the technology can lead to advancements in microchip technology. A third thing he did well at is although simple, it is also very important. The writer gave the who what where when why. This gives the reader a better understanding of the details.
Although it being short and simple can be seen as being a good thing, it also served as a bad thing. I think it was easy to understand, but the writer could have gone into more complex detail that us as 10th and 11th graders certainly would have understood. He also was very vaugue in explaining Graphene. I have no understanding of it from the explanation he gave.
One thing that really interested me about his article is that this “Afm” technology can create 3-d images. I just find that so interesting!
Jimmy Purdy
I thought this review was well written. I think the writer presented the article well by getting straight to the point of the article and not making it to complex. The writer did a good job comparing previous forms of technology (microscope) to the AFM. The writer also present why this discovery is beneficial and important by giving an example of what research will come from it. I think how AFM works could have been explained a little more in depth so the reader could fully understand how it works. Also the writer could have mentioned why 3D images are better than two dimensional ones in this situation. Finally I learned what graphene was, and how this scientific breakthrough will directly help everyone since computers and technology of that sort is so important in our daily lives. Over all I thought it was a good review that was very easy to understand.
Maxim Izotov
Article review 1/17 (Ryan Herrera on single-molecule images)
After reading Ryan’s article review, I can conclude that he did three things very well. First, he explained terms, such as graphene, which I did not know to make the article clear to me. This helped me understand the subject better. Next, Ryan gave a background to the research. He mentioned where the study took place and the differences between the old and new technologies, which were huge advancements. Doing so made the article much more appealing to me. Last but not least, Ryan did a tremendous job of going into detail. Not a lot of reviewers do this. He said “…create faster and smaller processors, circuits, and ultracapacitors,” which, in my opinion is much more sophisticated than just saying “graphene is better than the traditional silicon conductor.”
Although the interview was great, two things seemed to be out of line. First, Ryan did not say what effects this discovery will have. Although he did mention the perks, he did not relate it to everyday life, which is, in my opinion, vital to every review. Second and last, Ryan did not give a thorough enough review of the article itself, meaning the reflection of how well the author wrote it. I would have loved to heard more about that, since it reflects upon the caliber of the scientist in certain ways; the level of his education.
To me, this was not the most appealing topic. I could not relate this to the world I know. Possibly, it was because I did not understand the topic too well.
Post a Comment