Science topics: Chips
Science topic
Chips - Science topic
Explore the latest questions and answers in Chips, and find Chips experts.
Questions related to Chips
The first and for a long time the most widespread interpretation, the "Copenhagen interpretation", states that the object is initially in a state of all these contradictory properties (e.g. in different locations), but when measured it "chooses" one option , so the others disappear without a trace.
In recent decades, however, another perspective has become increasingly
important,
the "many worlds interpretation"
Developed in 1957 by Hugh Everett. What bothered him was that,
under the Copenhagen interpretation, the alternative properties simply
disappear.
There should be no such thing in physics. Moreover,
the Copenhagen interpretation cannot explain how
the alternatives disappear.
According to Everett, all properties are equally real, even those that
cannot be observed. But this leads to a radical consequence:
With each observation, the universe is divided into countless worlds in
which each of the possible properties is realized.
If we see the particle in position A, then there must be
a second world in which a copy of us observes the particle in position B.
Willow, the company's chip is associated with these claims,
purported to appear in a journal.
How Do Semiconductor Chips Work?
I am trying to optimize ChIP for my cell lines. I am doing with WT cells. I keep checking sonication efficiency on an agarose gel. So if I take a new sample of the same cell line, do I have to do gel run again before going forward with ChIP
I am extracting DNA using the ChIP protocol, following the aChIP protocol described by Zhang et al.(2024) in their article,
After performing Proteinase K treatment and overnight incubation, I extracted the ChIP'd DNA using the Qiagen kit. However, I was unable quantify the DNA using the Qubit Fluorometer.
To investigate the issue, I conducted a western blot and successfully detected a protein band from the eluted sample. This confirmed that my protocol works well up to this step.
Additionally, I performed PCR to access the DNA enrichment. However, the expression levels in the tagged sample were similar to those in the untagged sample.
I am concerned about where the DNA might be lost in the process and would appreciate any suggestions or possible solutions to resolve this issue.
Thank you.
Last year I studied a course on Computer Systems Architecture/Organization. During a lecture, I learned about data hazards and one of the common solutions to them: Reordering the instructions. Modern processors solve this using OOE, but since this is integrated into the processor, it increases chip size, power consumption, and thermal efficiency. So I thought "What if we had an AI-driven processor which does that for the CPU?"
Does anyone know if this has already been successfully researched or implemented? I would greatly appreciate any insightful comments.
I’m working on a microfluidic chip with two layers of PDMS separated by a PET membrane in a limited area, but bonding is not occurring. I’ve tried several protocols, including plasma treatment, immersing the membrane in ATPs, and treating the PDMS with GPTMS for 20 minutes, followed by surface cleaning, drying, and applying pressure before incubating for 12 hours. Despite these efforts and various methods, I haven’t achieved successful bonding. Has anyone used a technique that worked, or do you have any advice?
When I examined the GIXRD data obtained recently, I observed that the sample treated with O2 plasma on the Cu surface deposited on Si chips showed increased intensity compared to the sample without plasma treatment. In this case, what does it mean that only the intensity of Cu increased without additional peaks from other substances? I want to understand why this happened, as there were no broad peaks from amorphous materials at the baseline to suggest that the increase in intensity was due to increased crystallinity.

Hi everyone, I am a beginner in ABAQUS and have modeled a turning operation using dynamic explicit. The results are kinda meaningful but it does not display the chip formation at all.
1-The STATUS is selected in the Step module.
2- Element deletion is marked.
As a result, although I get the following image, I cannot see any chip formation, what could be the reason?

I want to work on microfluidic chip. Dispersed phase of alginate solution and continuous phase of Span 80 solution in combination with mineral oil or liquid paraffin. But I had a problem with the method of dissolution and percentage of concentrations and... to make a continuous phase solution. I would be grateful if you could help me.
"How do we understand special relativity?"
The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.
Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:
Abbas Kashani
A lot to work with, Abbas.
However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.
My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.
Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.
To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.
Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.
--
Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.
We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.
Now comes the mistake:
The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.
Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.
Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).
--
I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.
Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:
Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...
On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter, Replacing Albert Einstein’s General Relativity Theory
Anomalies in the behavior of matter, such as seen with the precession of Mercury, led researchers to look for the ether as the additional aspect that would explain the anomalies. Or, in the case of Albert Einstein, this led to appointing a curvature to Spacetime to explain the anomalies. This paper explains the anomalies based on an additional behavior of matter instead. The additional behavior of matter is known by all, but for some reason did not get incorporated into the prevailing scientific models.
When Albert Einstein published his General Relativity theory, he did not yet know about the materialization process, now commonly known as the Big Bang theory. That means that the behavior of matter based on the materialization process itself did not get incorporated in his framework. While Einstein will have reviewed this new Big Bang information for his General Relativity theory, he did not look for a mechanical explanation that would explain the anomalies.
What Einstein produced was a mathematical model to explain the anomalies (including predicting some outcomes that were not yet known). As such, the mathematical information is correct and is therefore not the subject matter of this paper. Instead, it is the explanation underneath the celestial outcomes that is distinct from Einstein’s gravitational model. A far more normal overall mechanism is proposed to be the reason for all behaviors of matter moving through space and that means that Spacetime can be discarded (though not the mathematical calculations).
The reason the mathematical information is correct, but the explanation of General Relativity is not, is based on the First Motion of matter. The Big Bang event produced a ‘sent-off’ action for matter. This means that all matter in the entire universe is on the move. There exists no matter that is at a standstill, and as such the lack of matter at a standstill should be understood as matter being a result, and how the materialization process itself produced that First Motion for all matter.
The amount of gravity in a galaxy that is required for a pure GR model is insufficient, and either the ether or dark matter are proposed to fill that gap. In the First Motion model, however, the currently known amount of gravity is exactly all the gravity there should be. There is no gap; there isn’t anything missing.
The specific point why Einstein’s mathematical framework is correct, but not the underlying reality, is that this First Motion action occurs in a ‘straight’ line through space. There is no gravity involved in this linear direction. Gravity is discovered only with the subsequent motions of matter.
· Second Motion: Circular motion of matter in a galaxy.
· Third Motion: Revolution of planets around their star.
· Fourth Motion: Spinning action of planets (moons in tow).
Therefore, the mathematical framework predicts the specific motions of matter, yet it does not explain why. While this may appear a minor aspect, it is a major aspect as this paper will show.
· Einstein’s GR uses gravity to fully explain the anomaly of Mercury’s precession.
· First Motion uses First Motion + Gravity to explain the anomaly.
--
To explain what is going on for a galaxy, and why less gravity is in play than required in GR, an analogy may help make this plain and obvious quickly. The analogy is that of 200 ice skaters. They are all skating in a group on a frozen canal. All are going at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment, at the same time.
Very clearly, one can see group activities, such as racing, pushing, hanging on to the strongest skater, playing, etcetera. Yet the vital aspect to understand is that the group is not skating as a group. In fact, the group is not skating as a group at all.
When an individual decides to stop skating, then the remainder of the group moves on. This shows that each skater is skating on his or her own power. There is no collective power for this group; the individuals are all doing the skating, and not the group.
For each of the 100 billion masses in the Milky Way, there is no option to stop ‘skating’. The First Motion that was put in place 13.8 billion years ago is on-going. There is no escape from this motion unless something specific interferes with the First Motion of a mass.
· All masses in a galaxy are moving in the same direction through space, at the same speed, at the same time, in the same environment.
That means that while there are collective behaviors noticeable and that gravity does play a role internally, the individual masses are not controlled by just gravity. The prime mover for each mass is applied to each mass and is not associated with the group.
There is no need to look for the ether or for dark matter, because the First Motion declares that there is just the amount of gravity required that has already been mapped fully. The group is a group because the prime mover of each of the individual masses is doing the exact same thing at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment.
--
This setup also indicates that the anomaly of Mercury’s precession can be explained by the specific aspects of First Motion in combination with the other motions. Note how this is a complexity and may take time to understand.
First an example of Sun, planet Earth and the Moon to warm up the mind.
These celestial bodies are like a truck, a car and a motorcycle, all speeding on the freeway in one and the same direction. The truck drives in a near-perfect straight line, whereas the car and the motorcycle going at the same speed also circle the truck (while the motorcycle circles the car as well). Their overall speeds are the same. They are on the same road, each driving the roadway by themselves.
· Important to note is that the Sun is not involved in the revolving actions that the planets are involved in.
The following is essential to understand: the Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the Solar System swirl and is not involved in revolving. Therefore, the planets show extra behaviors (revolving and spinning) that the Sun is not involved in.
Mercury is the planet closest to the central position of the Solar System’s swirl, while revolving and spinning. Not gravity, but the position in the swirling action of the Solar System is key. Keep in mind that all celestial bodies are moving at their fastest speed in the same direction.
To make the specific situation more understandable, one more analogy, this time about the Eye of the Hurricane. The closer to the Wall of the Eye of the Storm, the more an item will be swept up by the wind force. Meanwhile, in the Eye itself, there is no wind force. Where the center has a minimum expression of wind force, the location right next to it presents a maximum expression of wind force. There is no gradual change between this minimum and maximum, other than the gradual change in wind force when being further removed from the Eye of the Storm, from the maximum then to the minimum found much further out. The force is zero in the center, one right next to it, and then gradually diminishing toward zero again, at the edge of the entire storm.
The Sun is found in the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. The Sun is therefore not affecting the precession anomaly of Mercury. It is Mercury’s specific location in the swirl that causes the anomaly to occur. It is closer to the Eye; Mercury is closer to the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. It is affected disproportionately in its precession due to this closeness to the center (though not located in the center itself).
This visual from an article published in Nature (“Curved space-time on a chip”) is used to show Einstein’s GR with the gravitationally heaviest entity, the Sun, located in the center. The reason being is that the Sun does the curving that is then affecting the entity (be it either Mercury or for that article, photons) also shown in the image.
The same image can be used to show how First Motion + Gravity functions.
The Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the swirling motion of the Solar System. A requirement is then that the Sun is mostly made up of light-weighted materials, otherwise it would have been thrown out of this position a long time ago.
Indeed, while the Sun has amassed enormous amounts of material, hydrogen and helium make up most of the Sun. Despite heavier materials being present and despite the enormous amounts of materials being present, the Sun can be declared a light-weighted mass. It ‘sits’ in this central location because the light-weighted materials cannot get thrown out of that position.
One more analogy to make this easier to envision. The Sun is then like a very large but light-weighted ball ending up in a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast. This large ball cannot get pulled under due to its size and light-weighted essence, and it cannot go anywhere else because the maelstrom captured it. The Sun is physically stuck in place in the center of the Solar System swirl (Third Motion), while the entirety of the Solar System is on the move (in First and Second Motions).
Then, Mercury’s position should become obvious as well. Mercury is involved in Third and Fourth Motions (as well as First and Second Motions). The maelstrom is affecting the precession of Mercury; it becomes distinct compared to the other planets revolving around the Sun because the effects of the maelstrom play a role on Mercury whereas the maelstrom does not directly affect the specific behaviors of the other planets revolving around it. All other planets are located at a greater distance from the center of the Solar System swirl.
As visual aid, one can envision the behavior of a plane, its flight path mapped out on a flat screen or shown with the planet as backdrop. In one case, the straight line appears curved. In the other case, the line is straight instead. The interesting part is that the anomalies are not expressed like a flight path on the curved surface of a planet, but rather on the curved edge of the Wall of the Eye of the Storm.
Mercury’s anomaly is real, but in GR the reason is the Sun, whereas in FM+G the reason is found with the edge of the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl.
In both cases, GR or First Motion, the line is bent toward the viewer, and the effects therefore the same. Yet the GR model makes it all out to be as gravity based, and therefore ends up missing a large amount of gravity to explain how a galaxy is held together. In First Motion, there is no missing gravity.
--
A point to reiterate is how the model is complex and yet the various parts need to be understood as one model.
First Motion: Straight line of action (involving all matter). Not based on gravity.
Second Motion: Trajectory for Sun and Solar System. Gravity involved.
Third Motion: Trajectory just for planets in Solar System. Gravity involved.
Fourth motion: Planets spinning, moons in tow. Gravity involved.
· Each spinning, swirling reality will produce that Wall of the Eye, and this leaves a discussion about gravity wide open. That discussion is not part of this article.
Each swirling reality will produce a net-zero position in the center. Earth has its own spinning reality, stuck in the center of that swirling reality. The Solar System has the Sun stuck in the net-zero position. A galaxy’s center is more complex even still (but left unaddressed in this article as well).
The trajectory for planets is based on their own action in the larger Solar System setting with the Third Motion. Most planets are not pulled toward the center action of the First and Second Motions; they are far more involved in their own actions. Mercury, however, is placed in the position closest to where the First and Second Motion have their greatest influence. This becomes visible in the precession anomaly of Mercury.
--
A mechanical model explains all behaviors of matter moving through space.
Where Einstein envisioned two or three motions, he did not incorporate the most important motion, the First Motion. He left it out, even after becoming aware of it.
When models are not based on all motions, then researchers can claim that the ether is real or that Spacetime is a reality for matter.
--
Note once more how this does not involve any changes to the mathematical model. If the mathematical model is like a dog, then the issue discussed in this paper is about whether a dog wags its tail or whether the tail wags the dog. The dog itself is not the issue. The mathematical framework is not the issue.
Einstein’s GR is wagging the dog.
Ether is wagging the dog.
Dark matter is wagging the dog.
First Motion has the dog wag its tail.
--
First Motion is part of the Big Whisper model, which is a twin Big Bang model, yet it explains fully the behavior of matter through space and does so in a mechanical manner.
Fred-Rick Schermer
Reply to this discussion
Larissa Borissova added a reply:
Special Relativity is a partial case of General Relativity. The time in SR flows only with the velocity c along the surface of the isotropic (null) cone. The time is stopped only in the mment t = 0. SR does not include gravitational field, rotation and currvature as 4-space so 3-space.
Olivier Hakizimana added a reply:
Dear Abbas,
special relativity is very important when viewed from another angle (the coin paradox) than that of Einstein.
Article DIRECT PROOF TO THE YANG MILLS EXISTENCE AND MASS GAP (THE U...
Eric Baird added a reply:
Larissa Borissova , if you get SR physics as a partial case of GR physics, then you're doing GR wrong. (You're in good company - Einstein got this wrong, too.)
A proper general theory doesn't let us "switch off" gravity to get flat-spacetime inertial physics, because relativistic inertia requires inertia to be field-mediated, and "switching off" gravity also "switches off" inertia.
Eric Baird added a reply:
Abbas Kashani , Feynman's quantum vacuum drag calculations will be bad, because he'll only be doing half the calculation.
Javad Fardaei added a reply:
Feynman never observed electron, yet he predicted it, and prediction or write one-dimension static calculation for three-dimension of mature (atom) that it is changing (size, color, taste...) through temperature, pressure constantly is not science any way.
İrfan Kılıç added a reply:
Special relativity is not a word of truth!
Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
SS posts in
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Hello,
I am interested in this research field. I have the prototype of my microfluidic chips, but I am having a hard time finding literature that says exactly how they incubate their chips (with syringe pumps and all) in the incubator? How is it done?
I want to culture cells in the channels in the chip, with a constant flowing media, but is it feasible to put the whole syringe pump into the incubator as well? TIA
Hi, I'm currently fabricating double flow focusing microfluidic chip using SU8-2100 on silicon wafer.
Previously, I fabricated single flow focusing junction with 200um square channel using the same photoresist and achieved good definition and line profile. However, when i used the same procedure for double flow focusing junction, the problem arise is i cannot get a clean development on the corner of the junction. also, undercut profile is observed for the microchannel.
my current parameter is:
spincoat: 1000rpm (for 200um thickness)
soft bake:
- 65C for 8minutes (from room temperature, 8 minutes started when hotplate reach 65C)
- then gradually increase to 95C and stayed for another 60 mins.
expose: 12s at 20mJ/s
Post exposure bake: 65C for 8 min and 95C for 14 min
develop: 15 min
I wonder what else i should change since i tried increasing/decreasing exposure time, increasing soft bake time, and increasing development time.

Hello everyone, I am doing a simulation of orthogonal metal cutting process using CEL method. To make sure the simulation is better, I found a very good SCI paper for reference, but unfortunately I didn't reproduce the perfect chip simulation in the author's paper, the picture below shows the setup of my simulation and the simulation in the paper. (The parameters of material properties of workpiece, parameters of constitutive model and mesh size are exactly the same as those in the paper.) May I ask why the chips in my simulation are not curled normally and form serrated chips? Are there other settings in the CEL simulation that I am not aware of? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
paper link:

I am simulating the machining of Ti6Al4V on ABAQUS using dynamic explicit procedure. I have taken the data for johnson cook damage from research papers but none of them mentioned displacement at failure. I am not getting the chips as expected because the displacement at failure is wrong. How to calculate this?
I'm doing a flow experiment, flowing single MCF7 cells through PDMS microfluidic chips (connected to a glass microscope slide). Currently, I'm using a Pluronic F127 (0.1 wt%) coating. However, many cells still adhere to the glass surface.
Does anyone have suggestions on how to prevent the sticking of cells to both glass slide and PDMS surface?
Why this model have element penetration into the master element instead of flowing on the rake surface as shown in figure below.
Detail of model:
Contact: Surface to Surface
Uncut chip : ALE Adaptive Mesh
Element type: CPE4RT

Good evening to everyone!
I am currently processing ohmic contacts to n-AlGaN samples. In literature stacked metal layers like V/Al/Ni/Au or Ti/Al/Ti/Au are used to realize the metal contacts. In the following, it is crucial that these contact undergo a rapid thermal annealing @ high temperatures (700-900 °C) for short times (30s - 1min).
To use the processed metal contacts in a device (e.g. LED), they have to be wire bonded onto a chip carrier. Normally this can be done by using a Au wire and a ball-bonding process.
Used parameters:
Ti/Al/Ti/Au (15/100/25/200 nm) annealed for 1min @ 950°C.
Now to the problem:
Currently I am not able to stick the gold ball onto the metal contact. It is known that the Aluminum diffuses during the annealing. Mori et al ( ) showed that in the first 50nm of the contact, there is no Gold left, only Aluminum and its Oxide. Could this be the reason, why I am not able to wire bond the metal contact?
If so, what can be done about it? Would appreciate every tip and suggestion.
Thank you in advance.
hello everyone, I am new in chip-seq. Recently I want to try arabidopsis thaliana chip-seq by following this protolcol:
I have applied 2 g of A. thaliana seedling to follow the steps describe above, and I used Qsonica Q125 sonicator instead of Sanyo Soniprep 150. However, I failed to shear DNA into <1000bp, most of the genomic DNA has not been broken (first picture), even after 10 minutes of sonication (70% amplitude, 20s/20s on/off, total on time= 10 minutes)
Actually, before I strated to perform this experiment, I tried to use ~7kb plasmid to test the sonication efficiency, and the result was pretty good (second picture).
what should I do? why my chromatin shearing is not working?
Dear all,
I meet a big trouble in ChIP assay. I prepared the cell lysis buffer/shearing buffer containing 1%SDS which helps sonication well. However, 1%SDS damages the epitope of target protein and denature proteins, which prohibits the recognization of Antibody-target protein. Even though I diluted the sample 10-fold with 0.1% SDS before immunoprecipitation, the efficiency of ChIP is too low and I can only obtain 10 ng DNA sample (postive control: RNA Pol 2) from 25 ug chromatin materials per IP reaction. Then I reduced the concentration of SDS to 0.1% in the shearing buffer but the sonication efficiency is undesirable without high concentration SDS. The sonication analysis result is attached and turns out quite different efficiency with or without SDS.
By the way, I still have several other questions about ChIP assay.
1. Most of protocols suggest elution buffer containing 1%SDS and 0.1M NaHCO3. But the elution efficiency is not good enough. Can I replace it with 0.1 M Glycine-HCl pH=2.8 often used in Co-IP elution?
2. I usually use phenol/chloroform to purify DNA after reverse crosslink but I cannot see the DNA pellet on the 1.5 ml EP tube after ethanol precipitation and high-speed centrifuge. Generally speaking, how much DNA can be extracted from one ChIP reaction (2ug anti-RNA pol 2 antibody: 30 ul protein A/G beads: 25 ug sheared genomic DNA)


During the coming years, most likely two years, the United States of America will be able to obtain a new generation of artificial intelligence that is ten times smarter than Albert Einstein, because the degree of artificial intelligence will reach 1500 degrees, and this is certain, and the United States of America is superior to its competitors, both China and Russia. .
Artificial intelligence is being applied in the near future in other fields such as robotics, automation, big data analysis, machine learning, cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), augmented reality, and virtual reality, all of which combine to focus its use in cyber attack.
It enables America to obtain advanced technological chips that are more advanced and thinner than the current chips that measure three nanometers. Because some research centers were able to create technological chips with a thickness of 0.46 nanometers.
It has been proven that each of the huge number of transistors used in this field can accommodate approximately three billion data.
It is known that obtaining artificial intelligence falls within the scope of preemptive wars. Who do you think will be the first to get it and what are the repercussions of that?
The simplest scenario is for America to surprise the world with its sudden attack on the defense and technological systems of China and Russia, penetrate them in moments, and take control of all operational system codes, especially nuclear weapons. Presidents Xi Jinping and Putin remain idle, so America and its allies and partners simply control the world.
Then what will begin the era of powerful, intelligent and multiple robots whose production America and its companies monopolize so that America can maintain the administration of its new colonies and rule the world from afar through robots loyal to American hegemony and its companies?
Let us ask what next? What are the repercussions of this on the economic, political and social aspects in light of America’s dominance over robots and the superiority of artificial intelligence?
Will artificial intelligence remain silent about the global situation in the future? Will she accept what America is doing to her? Will you try to seize America's power or not? The truth is that it is a terrifying scenario and at the same time realistic and possible.
Is America itself subject to and affected by the artificial intelligence it will produce? If you submit to it, the economic, political and social aspects will change.
If we enter into a new world order at the mercy of robots, but robots are very intelligent, they choose the best and work on the principle of improvement and preference, and certainly what I see is the birth of the imaginary imaginary socialist system that satisfies us all and fills the world with happiness and prosperity.
Cytiva sells a GST antibody as part of a rather expensive kit for coupling tagged proteins to their sensor chips. The antibody can not be purchased separately, and we do not need all the other components of their kit. We are looking for alternative suggestions. Would like to find an antibody (preferably monoclonal) that has been tried in this kind of application.
Thanks!
I am using a syringe pump to feed 9 wells microfluidics chip, for one case I need a separate flow for each row of the chip ( 3 inlets ) and for a second case I need a separate flow of each well ( 9 inlets ) ..
Since it's not convenient to use 3 syringe pumps for the first case or 9 for the 2nd one I decided to use a splitter ( see the picture below ) ..
With the splitter the flow is going okay in some of the inlets but not all of them and I am failing to figure out why ,
Is there any other more effective way to be used ? Also are there any special things I need to check when using such splitter
Ps: the syringe pump flow for the first case is 6 microL/min and for the 2nd case is 18 microL/min
Thanks!

Hi. I have been trying to seal a PDMS mould with my channels on it onto a Si Chip. I am plasma etching (O2 clean) the PDMS but cannot activate the Si chip by plasma as it has Graphene on in it. Basically a graphene FET. Has anyone tried sealing such a device? I tried putting some SU8 on the edges before baking it but all I am getting is a very dirty Si chip at last with no channels working
I found some issues trying to clean a micrometric channel made of PDMS. This channel is part of a chip which has been used as a droplet generator before and it's 50 micrometers wide and 25 micrometers deep. Now I use it for Nanoparticle synthesis. I tried using a syringe pump loaded with DI water and it leaves clots of NPs inside of channel, making the chip useless. Do you have any idea which material (Like HCl solution) I should use and how to use it (Ultrasound or pumping)?
Thanks
I cannot fully understand the plot attached.Why did I get the negative response value?Does it mean that the ligand is unstable and degradting from the chip surface?
Besides,what does the binding stability plot mean? Should I get a increasing scattering plot as the concentration increases?

To see if it has any benefit to the human race
There is nothing worse for curb appearance than chipped and cracked concrete, particularly in steps. But you don’t have to put up with that blight any longer. By the result of weather changes exerted on an existing construction for prolonged time, it causes contraction and expansion those gradually results concrete steps cracks and break up with time.
Dear researchers, I would like to get expert opinions on how to fix this issue with,
optimum efficiency
low cost
prolonged sustainability .
Your answers are highly welcomed.
Dear colleagues, please help me find answers to a few questions. 1. Why does the size of sonicated chromatin differ between the input and ChIP samples? In the input, the DNA smear has a size between 200-500 bp, but in the ChIP, the DNA size is below 100 bp. 2. Is there any point in checking the DNA size after ChIP for subsequent ChIP-seq analysis ? I would like to note that the DNA concentration after ChIP is very low (1-2 ng/µl in a volume of 30 µl).
When I immersed a hydrophobic silicon wafer in the BSA-Br initiator solution and then tried to conduct ARGET ATRP polymerisation for two hours, the brushes results were very thin under 7 nm, While when I test the same solution on a chip without BSA-Br coating the thickness of brushes was favourable!
An example of it could be Intel's forthcoming “Falcon Shores” chip which will have 288 gigabytes of memory and support 8-bit floating-point computation. These will be specialized for AI supercomputing.
Hello :)
I would like to perform co-sputtering with elemental chips like the attached image.
And I wonder how can I attach the chips on the target surface?
* Is it okay if I just put it on? Or should I use glue?
* If adhesive is used, I would like to know the types and specifications of adhesives that can be used.

I would like to extract chromatin from frozen samples, but most of them are embedded in OCT?
Does anyone has experience with it?
Thanks a lot!
I am trying to clean/hydroxylate the surface of a blank silicon chip (with SiO2 layer on surface) by using piranha. I have freshly prepared a 2.5:1 solution of piranha solution (with new peroxide that has been stored in the fridge) and soaked the chips for 30 mins or 90 mins.
I then rinsed the chips with DI water 3x and took a contact angle measurement using DI water within 10 minutes of the piranha treatment and the CA was 45 degrees (an average of 4 measurements on different areas of the chip surface). I have seen in the literature that the CA for a freshly piranha treated Si chip should be around 0-10 degrees, based on the hydrophilic Si-OH surface. Any ideas where this could be going wrong?
TIA :)
I have a project regarding lipid nanoparticles.
I faced a problem that I don't have the related apparatus for PDMS fabrication.
Is fabrication a necessary procedure before mixing lipid with oligonucleotide with microfluidic chip?
Is there any alternative ways to do fabrication in lab?
Is it possible a minimum uncut chip thickness in ultraprecision machining obtain less than 0.1micrometer size????
I ran two RNA Pico chips, one after the other. I used the RNA ladder from the same exact aliquot, but for one chip it appears to only contain the upper marker; which still gives me the RIN numbers I need, but I would also like a proper concentration estimate. I would strongly prefer not re-do the chip to avoid an extra freeze-thaw cycle of the RNA.
Could I use the ladder file from my second chip to recalculate the standard curve for the first one? Or somehow edit the XAD file with the ladder data from the second chip so the fragment sizes and concentrations are recalculated?
Hi,
I'm trying to simulate a DMF (digital microfluidic) chip in COMSOL Multiphysics 5.5. I used a 2D model and selected two phase flow, level set and electrostatic modules to simulate a droplet on a grounded electrode motion when an energized electrode is right next to it. but after running the program the droplet didn't move toward the electrode and just spread on the dielectric surface which has a thin low permittivity layer instead of hydrophobic layer on it.
I don't know if I should add another physics such as moving mesh or apply an external force to the droplet by using variable setting.
I would be really glad if you could help me.
thanks
hello all,
I am trying to immobilize oxytocin on a CM5 chip, @200ug/ml concentration, and pH 4.0 acetate buffer.
Oxytocin is a 9 amino acid long peptide with a sequence "CYIQNCPLG", the first and sixth cysteine makes a disulfide bond.
I am not getting good immobilization at all.
I am hoping EDC/NHS was good and its something to do with the lack of lysine in OXYTOCIN
can anyone suggest me other ways of immobilization that I can use for oxytocin immobilization?
Thank You
Hello, I am from Argentina and I am an electronic engineer and PhD student working with resonators. I have made several PDMS chips for microfluidics but I don't know how to stick/glue them to the sensor in a non-permanent way. Also, fluid should not spill on the sensor (only on the gold sensing area). For that reason the PDMS chip is made to guide the liquid.
I hope for an answer !
We live in a world powered by computer circuits. Modern life depends on semiconductor chips and transistors on silicon-based integrated circuits, which switch electronic signals on and off. Most use the abundant and cheap element silicon because it can be used to both prevent and allow the flow of electricity; it both insulates and semiconducts.
Until recently, the microscopic transistors squeezed onto silicon chips have been getting half the size each year. It’s what’s produced the modern digital age, but that era is coming to a close. With the internet of Things (IoT), AI, robotics, self-driving cars, 5G and 6G phones all computing-intensive endeavors, the future of tech is at stake. So what comes next?
source: Silicon chips are reaching their limit. Here's the future | TechRadar
I once thought about the possibility of predicting earthquakes by implanting a special sensor chip in mice. But then I thought more: If this sensor chip is always in the mouse's body, it will affect the normal ability of the mouse. So good results cannot be obtained from it. What do you think about it?
Do you think "gene" is a program? Do they look like programs that creatures inherited from the previous generation? Like a solidified program in a computer chip? Why does biology not see "genes" as programs? If the gene is the program, you can treat the gene as a continuous sequence. Now biology knows that many genes work together, but it doesn't seem to focus on the order of the genes yet, and I don't know much about biology.
At present, I am performing an isothermal amplification experiment on the PDMS chip (heating at 60°C for 60 min), but I have encountered a big problem. In many cases, the droplets in the PDMS cavity will disappear after heating. How to solve this problem, can you give me some advice to solve this problem? I have tested on PC chips to rule out fluorinated oils and surfactants.


Hi folks, is there any public or private dataset for IC chip defection detection or classification? I'm working on a project of IC chip defection/anomaly detection, and is in bad need of access to any of these datasets. Please help recommend and find such one. Great thanks!
Sorry for the odd question, but I've recently had 2 students in the lab (consecutively, not at the same time) finding completely opposite results... one found a massive reduction in I-O relationship in hippocampal SC-CA1 synapses of a new mouse line when doing whole cell recordings. However, after he left, a new student did extracellular recordings for LTP experiments and also did I-O curves to find the stimulation intensity; he found a significant increase! I'm at a loss trying to explain this, can anyone chip in?
- I am looking for a simple (chip) method to prepare TiO2 thin (or thick) film on different surfaces by using nano-powder (or micro-powder) of TiO2. Does anyone know this method?
I am wondering why RF power LDMOS impedance are very low while by its nature suppose to be high. I understand that capacitance between gate and source is playing its role, but is it only this? As I understand gate fingers are paralleled between smaller chips, but still it should be something more
I am trying to standardize ChIP in my lab.. but unable to do that, I have tried with different protocols, but all failed. So I am asking is there any way to calculate the amount of DNA?
I am going to do sequencing for the first time and I am a bit confused how to count amount of chips that I need. I will use SMARTer smRNA-Seq Kit Takara for 96 reactions for library preparation. Should I calculate amount of samples per chip according to the size of my fragments? Or according to the concentration of pooled samples after library preparation?
Considering any CMOS technology, I am eager to know what is the upper limitation of MOSCAP design. Also I want to know that MOSCAP is larger than conventional on chip capacitors or not. For instance how to compare 1pF MOSCAP and a 1pF on chip capacitor regarding die occupation. Totally avoiding passive elements in chips can save lots of area, so I am looking for methos for realizing larger capacitors with smaller die occupation.
What percentage of microbial biofilm on a MBBR Chip is required for a industrial wastewater treatment plant?
I want to make a micro-fluid chip using PDMS. I print the casing for this purpose using SLA material. I want to cure the chip faster. I have a microwave oven (700 Watt). My question is that can I use microwave for curing PDMS? And what will be the effect on SLA part?
Hi,
Has anyone doing microfluidics work for cell culture started having problems recently with getting their Sylgard 184 PDMS to reliably and permanently bond to the glass substrate? We have tried replacing our PDMS elastomer base and curing agent recently but this has not fixed our problem. We have also tried using 10% less curing agent which didn’t help either.
Briefly our protocol involves the initial bake at 60 degrees C for 1.5 hours, cutting out chips the next day then cleaning the PDMS surface with adhesive tape, cleaning the glass surface with 70% ethanol and a blast of nitrogen, plasma treatment for 30 seconds at 50% power/~15W (Zepto ONE, Diener Electronic plasma cleaner), and then sticking the surfaces together. Final annealing overnight at 60 degrees C before checking my chips for any bonding issues.
Normally when I have improperly bonded chips it’s immediately obvious and I’d see a portion of the bonded PDMS stuck onto the glass. Recently I’ve noticed that too many of the chips come off the glass cleanly, leaving no residual PDMS. I also sometimes find that a chip may be properly bonded but then it comes undone at a much later stage. All this leads me to think that the bonding is no longer permanent like it should be. I’d appreciate any feedback or advice, or if anyone else has noticed this and what may have worked for you if you did. Thanks very much in advance!
I have been using the following video to make my connections, but I am stuck where the serial monitor is showing - "Connecting....." Can't figure where I am going wrong.
let me know as soon as possible
Hello,
I was wondering if someone can explain to me how to couple the light from a fiber into a waveguide on a chip.
Thank you in advance.
Dear Colleagues, I am working with gas sensing nanomaterials now and frequently see that many authors utilize 6-pin chips with steel mesh cover to fabricate the prototype gas sensors. The chips resemble something like dummy MQ2, MQ5, or MQ-135 modules for Arduino. However, I could not find on the internet any suppliers of such dummy/empty chips. (It is easy to find numerous ready chips with an installed sensing layer though.) Could you, please, suggest some suppliers which can provide the dummy chips, better in EU.
Sincerely yours,
Alexander.
Dear All
I would like to order a PDMS chip from a company by directly sending my AutoCAD dwg file and with explaning channel height-size specifications. Then, is it possible to receive a PDMS chip or at least a mask (so I will just need to pour PDMS and create chips)? if yes, do you recommend any companies? Many thanks!
Best Regards
Su
Hello everyone,
The workshop in my lab printed a mold with a Formlab resin printer (black resin) to make a simple microfluidic chip.
I'm aware that photoinitiators in 3D printer resins can inhibit the cure of PDMS.
I tried several cleaning/curing of the resin and everytime my PDMS (1:10 sylgard 184) is overall ok, except for the parts in contact with the mold which is milky and slightly sticky.
This surface results in no correct bonding with glass after plasma treatment...
So my strategy was to cast an intermediate polymer on the PDMS chip and then recast PDMS on top to get my final crystal clear PDMS working chip.
I tried with what we had in the lab > NOA73 that I pushed to 10min UV exposure for curing but surprise I have the exact same: a milky side (in contact with the milky side of the PDMS) and a clear side (air side).
When I cast PDMS on that it's curing everywhere except where the NOA is (fully unpolymerised).
I read that PDMS casting was ok on NOA, I even found a method paper doing this.
So I wanted to know if someone has struggle with this kind of materials before and if they found a solution. I precise that I need the flexibility of the PDMS for my final chip (embeded electronic valves and tubing).
I will certainly try epoxy and polyurethane as intermediates.
Thank you,
Describe:As the picture shows,I want to study little chips during cutting process ,like circled by the red line.But what I did is the second figure ,there are big chips rolling,no little chips drop or crash fly.
My sets:
1.PARTS:I set the tool as a rigid body in the interaction step,the work piece is separated to 2 or 3 parts for a tighter mesh in separate part.
2.PROPERTY: As the figure 2 shows ,JC hardening , JC damage , Shear damage . I am not sure if my defination is accurate.
3.MESH:Just like the figure 4 shows.
That's my question above , can anybody give some tutorial or advice , I am very appreciate about your reply.
I am using Keithley 2450 source meter to measure dark current of commercially available silicon PIN photodiode chip (SLCD - 61N - 5). As mentioned in the data sheet of the photodiode, the dark current measured at 5V reverse bias is around 3 microamperes. But, I am getting a dark current of around 20 milliamperes.
Connecting wires are attched to the anode and cathode of the photodiode chip using conductive silver paste. The Keithley 2450 source meter and SIlicon PIN solderable photodiode chip(SLCD-61N-5) are connected by using a breadboard. The measurements are taken using the front panel 4 probe method.
I am attching the datasheet of the photodiode chip and the circuit that I have used to measure the dark current.
I would be grateful if anybody could help me to sort out this problem.
Thank you for your valuable time.
I want to do Chip assay for detection of three different transcription factors forming a complex and bind to DNA at the same locus.
I am looking to find a technique that will allow me to pull down a promoter with a oligo-pull down method and identify any proteins that are in contact with that promoter. I have never seen any such technique in a paper but it would be a very good way to answer the question I am hoping to ask. Is anyone familiar with a technique that can do this or something similar to this? Thank you!
Hi there!
I have a question:
What is the best photonic network on chip simulator which has a good manuals and learning and community?
best
Yasin Asadi
Once the RNA is subjected to first-strand cDNA synthesis, is it stable? Can this product be run on the cDNA HS Chip on the bioanalyser?
I have a stainless steel 2 mm thick raw material. A 3 diameter hole is to be punched into it. My punch is made of ASP2023 or HSS material. It is giving a life of only 3000 - 4000 strokes before chipping off.
Which is the best coating to be used to increase the life of my punch. The target punch life that I need is 70000.
Hi,
I would like to know if any of you have sonicated the cell line K562 with Bioruptor for ChIP. How many cycles do we need to properly sonicate this cell line?
I am working in control radiant flux of LEDs using a PWM controller. For this purpose I will use a MOSFET as a switch between the PWM chip and the LEDs. In this case should my mosfet operate in linear or saturation mode?
Here you can talk and share your idea and experiences on network on chip simulators in any fields like Wire, Wireless, 2D, 3D, Photonic, etc.
feel free to ask questions and share ideas.
what is the best simulator in this field and what makes it better than others?
I am planning to do a lot of ChIPs following 'Chromatin techniques for plant cells Bowler 2004' and thus I am planning on stockpiling a lot of stock solutions and premade ChIP buffers. I'm having a very difficult time finding any consistent info on storage conditions for even individual solutions and whether they should be sterile and whether to do it by autoclave or filter. Multiple sources give conflicting information so I've tried to compile what I felt was the consensus below.
I was wondering if I could get any help confirming that the below information is correct and fill in the missing info?
A: typical storage condition/time in storage
B: storable at -20C?/time stable at -20C
C: storable at -80C? /time stable at -80C
D: light sensitive?
E: should be autoclaved?
F: should be filter sterilized?
G: special considerations
Stock Solutions
Formaldehyde 37% :
A: RT/2 yr B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: NO E: NO (obviously) F: NO G: hazardous
Glycine 2M :
A: 4C/2 yr B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: NO E: YES (autoclave or filter sterilize) F: YES
SUCROSE 2M :
A: RT/6m B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: NO E: YES (autoclave as long as solution does not turn brown or filter sterilize) F: YES
Tris-Hcl pH 8 1M :
A: RT/indefinite B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: NO E: NO F: NO
B-ME 14.3M:
A: RT/? B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: ? E: NO F: NO G: hazardous
PMSF 0.2M :
A: -20C/? B: Yes/indefinite C: Yes/indefinite D: NO E: NO F: NO G: hazardous
MgCl2 1M: