Edible computer and electronics

Post Reply New Topic

https://news.mit.edu/2018/cell-sized-ro ... nment-0723

Researchers at MIT have created what may be the smallest robots yet that can sense their environment, store data, and even carry out computational tasks. These devices, which are about the size of a human egg cell, consist of tiny electronic circuits made of two-dimensional materials, piggybacking on minuscule particles called colloids.

Colloids, which insoluble particles or molecules anywhere from a billionth to a millionth of a meter across, are so small they can stay suspended indefinitely in a liquid or even in air. By coupling these tiny objects to complex circuitry, the researchers hope to lay the groundwork for devices that could be dispersed to carry out diagnostic journeys through anything from the human digestive system to oil and gas pipelines, or perhaps to waft through air to measure compounds inside a chemical processor or refinery.

“We wanted to figure out methods to graft complete, intact electronic circuits onto colloidal particles,” explains Michael Strano, the Carbon C. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT and senior author of the study, which was published today in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. MIT postdoc Volodymyr Koman is the paper’s lead author.

“Colloids can access environments and travel in ways that other materials can’t,” Strano says. Dust particles, for example, can float indefinitely in the air because they are small enough that the random motions imparted by colliding air molecules are stronger than the pull of gravity. Similarly, colloids suspended in liquid will never settle out.



Researchers produced tiny electronic circuits, just 100 micrometers across,on a substrate material which was then dissolved away to leave the individual devices floating freely in solution. (Courtesy of the researchers)

Strano says that while other groups have worked on the creation of similarly tiny robotic devices, their emphasis has been on developing ways to control movement, for example by replicating the tail-like flagellae that some microbial organisms use to propel themselves. But Strano suggests that may not be the most fruitful approach, since flagellae and other cellular movement systems are primarily used for local-scale positioning, rather than for significant movement. For most purposes, making such devices more functional is more important than making them mobile, he says.

Tiny robots made by the MIT team are self-powered, requiring no external power source or even internal batteries. A simple photodiode provides the trickle of electricity that the tiny robots’ circuits require to power their computation and memory circuits. That’s enough to let them sense information about their environment, store those data in their memory, and then later have the data read out after accomplishing their mission.



The microscopic devices, combining electronic circuits with colloid particles, are aerosolized inside a chamber and then a substance to be analyzed is introduced, where it can interact with the devices. These devices are then collected on microscope slides on a surface so they can be tested. (Courtesy of the researchers)

Such devices could ultimately be a boon for the oil and gas industry, Strano says. Currently, the main way of checking for leaks or other issues in pipelines is to have a crew physically drive along the pipe and inspect it with expensive instruments. In principle, the new devices could be inserted into one end of the pipeline, carried along with the flow, and then removed at the other end, providing a record of the conditions they encountered along the way, including the presence of contaminants that could indicate the location of problem areas. The initial proof-of-concept devices didn’t have a timing circuit that would indicate the location of particular data readings, but adding that is part of ongoing work.

Similarly, such particles could potentially be used for diagnostic purposes in the body, for example to pass through the digestive tract searching for signs of inflammation or other disease indicators, the researchers say.

Most conventional microchips, such as silicon-based or CMOS, have a flat, rigid substrate and would not perform properly when attached to colloids that can experience complex mechanical stresses while travelling through the environment. In addition, all such chips are “very energy-thirsty,” Strano says. That’s why Koman decided to try out two-dimensional electronic materials, including graphene and transition-metal dichalcogenides, which he found could be attached to colloid surfaces, remaining operational even after after being launched into air or water. And such thin-film electronics require only tiny amounts of energy. “They can be powered by nanowatts with subvolt voltages,” Koman says.



As a demonstration of how such particles might be used to test biological samples, the team placed a solution containing the devices on a leaf, and then used the devices’ internal reflectors to locate them for testing by shining a laser at the leaf. (Courtesy of the researchers)

Why not just use the 2-D electronics alone? Without some substrate to carry them, these tiny materials are too fragile to hold together and function. “They can’t exist without a substrate,” Strano says. “We need to graft them to the particles to give them mechanical rigidity and to make them large enough to get entrained in the flow.”

But the 2-D materials “are strong enough, robust enough to maintain their functionality even on unconventional substrates” such as the colloids, Koman says.

The nanodevices they produced with this method are autonomous particles that contain electronics for power generation, computation, logic, and memory storage. They are powered by light and contain tiny retroreflectors that allow them to be easily located after their travels. They can then be interrogated through probes to deliver their data. In ongoing work, the team hopes to add communications capabilities to allow the particles to deliver their data without the need for physical contact.

Other efforts at nanoscale robotics “haven’t reached that level” of creating complex electronics that are sufficiently small and energy efficient to be aerosolized or suspended in a colloidal liquid. These are “very smart particles, by current standards,” Strano says, adding, “We see this paper as the introduction of a new field” in robotics.

The research team, all at MIT, included Pingwei Liu, Daichi Kozawa, Albert Liu, Anton Cottrill, Youngwoo Son, and Jose Lebron. The work was supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

"Swallowable" electronics already exist for medical purposes (as Fnord posted above). But swallowable is not the same thing as "edible". You wouldnt digest these devices. And you would not derive nutrition from them if you did.

^
Edible according to the dictionary means something you eat. One definition of “eat” is to “absorb”. Absorb has a number of meanings such as “take in”. You and Fnord, are welcome to your narrow understanding of “edible”. No one else is required to follow your definition. That is why dictionaries exist. OP was clearly not using the overly narrow definition proposed. Other articles discussing edible computers or edible computer chips do not use the definition proposed. Black and White thinking perhaps? Difficulty in perspective taking, or ToM? Challenges with some types of abstract thinking?

you're contradicting yourself.

you're saying the "the word 'eat' does not mean X. It can also mean X."

You declare that "the dictionary says that 'to eat' means 'to aborb"'. Exactly my point! You eat actual food in order to absorb it into your body via digestion to get nutrition.

A medical nanorobot that you swallow, and passes through you without being digested is not being "aborbed". And you dont swallow them in order to get nutrition. A plutonium powered stainless steel bot is not nutritious.

So thanks for agreeing with me. LOL!

But...I will help you out. You WANT to disagree with me. So if you were able to keep track of your own train of thought better you have said "to 'eat' CAN mean 'to ingest without also DIgesting' as well as meaning 'ingest TO digest for nutrition'".

I think thats wrong...but lets go with that.

you're right that I cant put a gun to your head and force you to follow my 'narrow' definition.

BUT...it would be nice if the OP wrote in such a way that folks knew what he was talking about.

I cant force you to write in English. You could combine Swahili with pig Latin in your WP posts. But no one would know Wtf you're talking about if you did that.

It sounds like the OP is talking about electronic devices that would be nutritious, or at least harmless, to...'absorb' and digest in your body.

He could have specified by saying 'swallowable' or 'ingestible' but 'NOT digestible' for clarity's sake. But he didnt. And he didnt even return to his thread to specify later in the conversation what he meant.

^ I’m saying edible computers mean more than your narrow definition. It can mean more than one thing. You keep insisting that it only means what you are thinking it means and nothing else. Not sure how that amounts to my contradicting myself. You say swallowing is not eating because Fnord said so. I say dictionary does not agree with Fnord precisely because there is more than one definition. Not because my definition is right and Fnord is therefore wrong. Which is what narrow means. It means not wide. Not wide enough to include more definitions. I am saying your definition is narrow, too narrow to include all the several definitions I offered as valid options. It if you want to think “it means more than one thing” is the same as contradicting myself… you are kind of proving my point of saying you are engaging in black-and-white thinking. Either it it is black (my definition) or white (your definition) it couldn’t possibly be both. My whole point is that there IS more than one definition. It can be polka dot.

Maybe you could read what was written instead of assuming OP means what you think. Read what I posted before Fnord posted. Edible CAN mean more than one thing. As I have said all along.

https://onelook.com/?w=edible&ls=a&loc=home_ac_ediable

Yet another take on “edible computer” - this computer is a computer that computes edibles.


japantoday.com

And another

https://www.saveur.com/3d-printers-pasta-barilla/

And another

https://www.3dprintersonlinestore.com/f ... fAEALw_wcB

1)your claim that it can mean a broader definition is NOT born out in the dictionary definition you cite. That dictionary says "absorbing into body" is part of what "eating is". Ergo the dictionary agrees with me and disagrees with you. These future nanorobots/computers pass through body and come out. They dont get "absorbed" into your body. "


Ergo you're contradicting yourself by citing it.

2)I was just acknowledging that someone else on the thread said the same thing I said...the person who happens to be Fnord. I was not taking orders from Fnord. Just acknowledging that there is more than one right thinking person on the thread who independently of me came to the same conclusion I did.

3) So what if I prefer to narrow the definition? Why make things confusing and ambiguous by making the definition "broader"?

Eating means mastication of food in your mouth followed by digestion in order to cure hunger. Not sending a non digestible nanorobot into your mouth to gather medical data. Such devices are "ingestible" or "swallowable", but really "edible". And their toxic components would kill you if you did digest them.

I can't see the point of what this technology would be?

I'm sure there are better ways to bio-degrade something than having to eat something like a computer?