[HN Gopher] A new class of tiny, self-propelled robots that can ...
___________________________________________________________________
A new class of tiny, self-propelled robots that can zip through
liquid at speed
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 224 points
Date : 2023-05-31 12:28 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.colorado.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.colorado.edu)
| dmbche wrote:
| "The team makes its microrobots out of materials called
| biocompatible polymers using a technology similar to 3D printing.
| The machines look a bit like small rockets and come complete with
| three tiny fins. They also include a little something extra: Each
| of the robots carries a small bubble of trapped air, similar to
| what happens when you dunk a glass upside-down in water. If you
| expose the machines to an acoustic field, like the kind used in
| ultrasound, the bubbles will begin to vibrate wildly, pushing
| water away and shooting the robots forward."
|
| Incredible! So they're driven from outside the body and are just
| a delivery mechanism without electronics?
| samstave wrote:
| What happens if you go into an MRI machine with these bitches
| inside you?
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Air bubbles in the blood are lethal. Is that not a problem? Do
| the machines need to be reclaimed after they do their thing?
| Retric wrote:
| It only takes 2-3 cubic centimeters of air in the blood to
| kill someone but this is several orders of magnitude smaller.
|
| These things are 0.02mm ( 0.0008 inches) wide, ~1/100
| millionth of a cubic centimeter, individual bubbles or even
| fairly large numbers of bubbles of that size aren't a
| significant issue.
| cududa wrote:
| The article said they currently aren't biodegradable. I
| assume they eventually kill the mice.
| bombolo wrote:
| Depends if kidneys filter them or not...
| jvm___ wrote:
| Not unless they reach escape velocity, although that might
| not end well for the mouse either.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Air bubbles are typically not lethal until over 150cc of air.
| That's a massive amount, that will not be reached by those
| machines.
| warent wrote:
| I remember learning about this in EMT training. That a tiny
| air bubble in an IV line is lethal is a popular myth.
| Actually apparently IV lines have air in them all the time,
| the body is not that fragile
| IE6 wrote:
| completely anecdotal experience but I had surgery
| recently and commented on the air in the anesthesia line
| and the anesthesiologist commented that it only happens
| in the movies, source: guy who lived
| afterburner wrote:
| "alright, he's out, now fix that bubble!"
| jcims wrote:
| I've seen hundreds of bubbles go into the same person
| over the course of a couple years of infusions and no
| issues.
| [deleted]
| xp84 wrote:
| Can you double check that amount? That is a considerable
| volume of air, about 3 golf balls. I don't understand how
| anyone could ever end up with that much air inside their
| body without a hand pump or an air compressor.
|
| Also another comment next to yours said 2-3cc.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Dr. Google leads me to believe there may be a distinction
| between air in arteries, and air in veins. The former may
| be lethal at around 5cc, but the latter may be
| considerably more tolerant.
| deskamess wrote:
| Let say one of those rockets dropped its air bubble
| somehow. How does the body get rid of it? Or does it?
| dymk wrote:
| Gas perfusion into the surrounding tissues and liquids,
| probably
| programmer_dude wrote:
| I think the air will escape through the lungs eventually.
| Lalabadie wrote:
| If your question is about the air: It does! The blood
| carries a ton of cells that can pick up air components.
| Red blood cells (more specifically, their hemoglobin)
| bind to the O2 and CO2. Your vessels also feed into your
| body's plasma, which can act as a circulating reservoir
| for yet-to-be-collected CO2.
|
| The major component in atmospheric air, nitrogen (N2), is
| already abundant in the blood too, so it isn't an issue.
| If I remember correctly, our bodies are generally in
| equilibrium with the outside air in terms of N2 partial
| pressure.
|
| Admittedly, a small air bubble in the blood bypasses a
| lot of the specialized membranes our alveoli use to make
| their gas exchange, but blood itself can manage a bit of
| air just fine.
|
| If you're asking about the nanorobot, however: The
| article says it's not yet biodegradable to the degree
| they want to make it.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > Do the machines need to be reclaimed after they do their
| thing
|
| There are mechanisms to expel so called "foreign bodies",
| through the details are important (how long until they are
| detected, ...)
| mysterydip wrote:
| Does that mean eventually antibodies could be produced that
| match these machines?
| dmbche wrote:
| My understanding is that these machines are made to not
| interact with the immune system, since that could cause
| massive problems - I imagine they expect them to
| disintegrate in inert pieces that the body can treat as
| normal waste, like dead cells and the like.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| I don't think antibodies can bind to simple materials
| like these robots seem to be made of.
| beanjuice wrote:
| The paper:
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202300...
| politician wrote:
| I wonder how much damage those propeller fins can do to vascular
| tissue, especially capillaries, and at what density.
| incomingpain wrote:
| Borg incoming.
| jostmey wrote:
| We already have tiny robots that can crawl through our body and
| remove damaged cells, including cancerous cells... our immune
| cells. Some immune cells can even crawl between other cells in
| solid organs, known as tissue infiltrating lymphocytes. The
| future may lie in engineering these already existing tools to be
| better. This is essentially the promise of new technologies like
| CAR T cell therapies, where immune cells are engineered to help
| control cancer.
| bitwize wrote:
| There was an Intellivision game called Microsurgeon, later ported
| to the TI-99/4A, that saw you controlling a tiny probe swimming
| through a patient... you had to zap the viruses and bacteria with
| appropriate treatments while navigating the patient's body.
|
| It's cool to see reality approaching such high-concept stuff.
| msie wrote:
| 10 years away for mainstream use I'll bet.
| [deleted]
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Not bad, but call me when it's a submarine with Raquel Welch on
| board.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmNTFlRASYY (Fantastic Voyage,
| 1966)
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Haha I hadn't seen that for decades. Those special effects look
| like something a kid could do today.
|
| Do you remember whether in the movie they explained why they
| can see outside the ship?
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| It's been ages since I watched it too.
|
| I don't remember if they tried to explain any of the
| "science" - rather doubt it. Maybe blood is clear between the
| red blood cells? Guess they had good lights on the sub too.
|
| Flesh Gordon (campy porn version of Flash Gordon) is another
| recommended movie with similarly awful special effects !
| DennisP wrote:
| From a quick google, healthy plasma is light yellow and
| translucent. At the tiny distance our miniature heroes were
| looking through, it'd probably be close enough to
| transparent.
|
| The original book by Isaac Asimov probably had pretty
| accurate biology. Don't know how much the movie changed it.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Or its spiritual successor with Dennis Quaid on board,
| Innerspace (1987).
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Or the dramatic medical documentary 'Hole in my Heart' by
| Alphabeat:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FFpfF2AZzY
| ian0 wrote:
| Was just about to say. Some alternate bloodstream footage:
|
| https://youtu.be/qGOGNixTic4?t=18
| scoopr wrote:
| Fantastic reference, that I had not come across. For me, Outer
| limits - The New Breed (s01e17), came to my mind.
| [deleted]
| momirlan wrote:
| microplastics in the bloodstream, what could possibly go wrong ?
| ibz wrote:
| Remotely controlled particles (machines?) in the bloodstream.
| What could possibly go wrong?
| amelius wrote:
| As long as they can not swim up against a stream of urination.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > swim up against a stream of urination
|
| As per findings by the Mythbusters some number of years ago,
| the stream of pee is not unbroken.
|
| > The Mythbusters tested the myth that you could be
| electrocuted by peeing on the 3rd rail. The myth was 'busted'
| as the stream would be broken up due to distance and there
| wouldn't be a continuous path for the electrical current to
| follow.
|
| https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/1536218/mythbust...
| varjag wrote:
| Long time ago, I've seen a dog electrocuted while peeing at a
| sliding security gate motor.
| capableweb wrote:
| You can definitely get a shock if you stand not miles away
| from a electric fence and pee at it. I've personally observed
| this, to much dismay.
|
| Not sure how peeing specifically on a "3rd rail" is relevant.
| The distance seems more relevant, as the further away your
| pee-droplets reach, the further away they'll move from each
| other. But stand close enough and the stream will be
| unbroken.
| giardini wrote:
| Yeah, but it's a lot funnier to stand "miles away from an
| electric fence and pee at it" since it establishes
| masculine dominance and indicates an incredible level of
| skill, not to mention unbelievable "pee pressure".
| Definitely Paul Bunyan-esque!
|
| Why do I get the impression we have a lot of non-native
| English posters here today?!
| codetrotter wrote:
| Yes, distance is important of course.
|
| The distance they tested is still pretty close.
|
| Only when the test dummy was abnormally near was the
| circuit closed.
|
| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3pidli
|
| So therefore, in normal circumstances you should be safe
| from nanobots swimming up your pee hole.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > specifically on a "3rd rail" is relevant
|
| "Third rail" means the rail that is electrified (it is
| often literally the third rail as well):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail
| boredumb wrote:
| "3rd rail" probably because it's a half joke/half warning
| about the subways in NYC being electrified on the 3rd rail
| and not to be a jerk and piss in public.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Against an ordinary 3rd rail, yes - these tend to be below
| 1500V DC per Wikipedia [1] and the German systems I know of
| all are at 750V nominal voltage, with only Hamburg's S-Bahn
| operating at 1200V.
|
| Against an overhead line, say if you're urinating from a
| bridge? That's 15-25 kV if it's rail. I would _not_ dare risk
| my chances there - and most bridges I know have "piss
| shields" or generally raised walls to prevent people from
| trying.
|
| [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromschiene#Nennspannungen
| _be...
| codetrotter wrote:
| Not suggesting anyone try peeing on anything that has
| current flowing through it :P
|
| Was just bringing it up because the stream would need to be
| unbroken in order for the nanobots to swim up it.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Less than a handful of years ago some kid died doing that
| around here.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| If you're a man who pees that slowly, you should see a
| urologist. You may have an enlarged prostate.
|
| OTOH, if they can be used to seek and destroy in-motion kidney
| stones, the inventors could become billionaires.
| chubbnix wrote:
| Is self propelled the right wording when you blast a loose
| propellor with ultrasonic waves? If so I have created a large
| variety of self propelled robots in my ultrasonic cleaning
| machine.
| cornholio wrote:
| Wait until that propeller has controllable pitch and direction,
| commanded by the on board chip. 20 um x20 um is enough area, in
| a 2nm process, to accommodate roughly 100,000 transistors.
| That's about 5x the Apollo guidance computer.
|
| So you would supply bulk ultrasound energy to the organ or area
| you are treating, and these tiny machines would start to have
| complex interactions, communicate and locate themselves
| relative to one another, and coordinate to attack the tumor,
| deliver the drug, destroy amyloid plaque etc.
| beambot wrote:
| 20um x 20um is still a bit impractical -- it gets close to
| the practical limits of wafer dicing, and you need support
| circuitry. That said, we've made useful payloads in as little
| as 100um x 100um; here's an example of our (published) work
| in 200um x 200um:
|
| A 200um x 200um x 100um, 63nW, 2.4GHz Injectable Fully-
| Monolithic Wireless Bio-Sensing System
|
| http://www.travisdeyle.com/publications/pdf/2017_rfic_implan.
| ..
| arthur2e5 wrote:
| That's starting to sound like an RFID device, but with sound
| instead of radio waves. In this framework I guess the
| propeller-thing is analogous to a Crookes radiometer.[0] I
| wonder what would be the Great Seal Bug[1]?
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| No it's not. It's an external force propelling it. Clickbait
| article and headline. It's literally a piece of plastic that
| they move with noise. It's neither self propelling or a robot.
|
| This kind of stuff has also already been done with magnetic
| fields.
| moffkalast wrote:
| But did they look like tiny-ass boat propellers? See, not
| nearly as cool.
| azeemba wrote:
| Anyone know what is the smallest man-made powered device capable
| of mechanical movement?
|
| I assume we can make mm-scale things. Considering that this 20um
| item is in the news and isn't powered, maybe mm scale is where
| the current limit is?
| jfarlow wrote:
| I've designed a device that utilizes mechanical force to
| transmit information that was around 5nm in diameter. It was
| based on the human Notch receptor. It's a few hundred amino
| acids in length, folded to produce a protein that senses force
| transmission, is cleaved upon unfolding, and releases a
| transcription factor the nucleus of a cell.
|
| I kind of find the distinction of 'robots' vs cells funny, as
| once you get down to the (sub)nanometer level one's intuition
| should flip: organic material acts stiffer and more lego-like
| than metals - which act more like unreliable putties. A
| "device" that becomes small enough is much more likely to be
| made of organic molecules than metallic molecules - cells ARE
| those futuristic robots...
|
| The kinesin motor proteins are pretty cool too [1], but those
| are naturally occurring machines that I suspect we'll be
| imitating for a long time.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8
| areoform wrote:
| It turns out the real nanotechnology was the life we found
| along the way.
|
| More seriously, I think that biology is better described and
| studied as applied nanotechnology. These are nano-scale,
| complex mechanical systems that are capable of manipulating
| their environment in an autonomous fashion. They're the
| science fiction nanobots we've been looking for all along!
| gene-h wrote:
| If you mean smallest robot with an onboard power supply and
| control, mm is the best we can do. The problem is that the
| power conversion electronics are too large. Electromagnets
| don't work well as you scale down. So you need
| piezoelectric/electrostatic actuators which need high voltage.
| Converting low battery voltage up is difficult without
| electrical transformers.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| People made devices where a single atom can be moved at will.
|
| But they are fixed.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| MEMS can have elements as small as 1um. Molecular robotics
| operates at much smaller scales. But generally, the line
| between what is mechanical and what isn't becomes the blurrier
| the smaller the scale is.
| lapama wrote:
| And the smallest that fly for 1h under command?
| grantsucceeded wrote:
| so _nobody_ read Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson?
|
| Basically, nanotec bots that spin around on command are put into
| the bodies of people, so they can be made to spin around and
| dissolve them from the inside out.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| That's not the only thing they do! They also could fire muscle
| fibers perpetually so people who wantef to could get huge
| without intentionally working out, at the cost of looking
| twitchy all the time.
|
| I loved that book.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| Wouldn't that still make you sore and tired all the time?
|
| Neat concept, though
| Jorge1o1 wrote:
| Nanomachines, son!
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Maybe we could spend more time figuring out what actually
| _causes_ painful bladder syndrome and fix that instead of taking
| our cues for shiny new (headline grabbing) tech from science
| fiction as a higher priority than actual health.
| internetter wrote:
| > Maybe we could spend more time figuring out what actually
| causes painful bladder syndrome
|
| Yeah, I guess we could also do that for cancer! Then we
| wouldn't need to invest so much resources making treatments for
| it....
|
| Jokes aside, I don't know anything about painful bladder
| syndrome, but much like other illnesses, a cure is often much
| harder to develop. In the meantime, what we _can_ do is develop
| treatments.
|
| Plus, as the article hints at, there are so many other
| applications for it. When I read it, I read the current tests
| as a proof of concept. The sky is the limit with simple
| treatments that currently require surgeries or other invasive
| procedures that could be addressed here. An optimistic moonshot
| is teaching them to attack tumors.
|
| All and all, if you couldn't tell, I'm really bullish on this
| tech.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| I don't think this is anything to joke about.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| rolph wrote:
| micro-effectors; nano effectors; but not independent bots.
| convolvatron wrote:
| how to they steer? or more broadly navigate? if I dumped a bunch
| of self-powered boat propellers in a swimming pool, would
| anything aside from brownian diffusion and uncontrolled
| collisions happen?
| lapama wrote:
| Next they will fly and cut your hear, in their most civil
| application.
|
| Post Scriptum: I apologise if for some reason the above joke is
| found out of order.
| dncornholio wrote:
| Can we call them robots when there is no mechanics working inside
| them?
| ibz wrote:
| If you are part of the marketing team, yes.
| mildred593 wrote:
| blood clots, anyone ?
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Well, maybe it can clean them while doing analytics. Those are
| really the only two use-cases so far. Not like it can repair
| tears or improve artery/vein wall quality.
| sovnade wrote:
| Wouldn't something like this actually be great at breaking up
| clots?
| jmartrican wrote:
| If possible they should make these robots out of material that
| dissolves over a period of time.
| dpflan wrote:
| I feel like the singularity will be achieved by ultra-rich
| pursuing longevity science and essentially making themselves
| human-machine organisms comprised of nano-bots and a brain until
| all is replaced with always upgradeable materials to ensure
| longest longevity.
| CommanderData wrote:
| When we get to true nanoscale bots or even the size that can
| traverse all vascular systems of all size, carry drug payloads
| with targeted delivery and perform micro surgery, being self
| powered and able to communicate. I think I'll celebrate but
| we're far far away from that reality.
|
| Last I checked, we have nano medicine with targeted delivery
| with limited success. I think some of these made it to market.
| ftxbro wrote:
| > I feel like the singularity will be achieved by ultra-rich
|
| It will trickle down though right like a rising tide lifts all
| boats
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| "trickle down like a rising tide" is the greatest mixed
| metaphor I have ever heard.
| moffkalast wrote:
| More like a rising tide floods the streets and causes
| billions in property damage.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| You guys are pretty optimistic, and I admire you for it. I
| want to be like you.
|
| My first thought went to assassin nanytes that could be
| delivered in target's tea, target's swimming pool or spa,
| target's shower or bath, or even the rain if you're clever
| enough about it. They have to work out locomotion, but I'm
| sure they've got some bright people working on that already
| in most of the world's intelligence services. These kinds of
| devices would have the benefit of deniability, rendering
| attribution virtually impossible. And their delivery would
| involve far less risk and danger. Pretty sure we can all
| envision a multi modal version 20 years from now, making
| delivery trivial and zero risk.
|
| I hope you guys are right though, and we use it as a medicine
| rather than a weapon. My gut just tells me we'll develop it
| as both, and the weapon will be far more effective.
| dmbche wrote:
| No one needs these nanobots to kill - see: https://en.m.wik
| ipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvi...
| vesinisa wrote:
| Hold your horses. Calling these devices "bots" is a bit of a
| stretch:
|
| > The team makes its microrobots out of materials called
| biocompatible polymers using a technology similar to 3D
| printing. The machines look a bit like small rockets and come
| complete with three tiny fins. They also include a little
| something extra: Each of the robots carries a small bubble of
| trapped air, similar to what happens when you dunk a glass
| upside-down in water. If you expose the machines to an acoustic
| field, like the kind used in ultrasound, the bubbles will begin
| to vibrate wildly, pushing water away and shooting the robots
| forward.
|
| So it's essentially a small device that can be pushed around by
| an external field rather than an actual autonomous robot.
|
| But a tiny bot sure sounds more exciting than "remote-
| controllable dust".
| hammock wrote:
| Who said autonomous?
|
| A robotic arm in a factory is also "a device that can be
| pushed around by an external field"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-31 23:00 UTC)