Single-element len's tech claims chromatic correction

But nothing said about other aberrations. Also, the structures on the surface, would it interfere with keeping it clean, or are they so small they wouldn't matter.

On Monday, 1 January 2018 20:33:11 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
But nothing said about other aberrations. Also, the structures on the surface, would it interfere with keeping it clean, or are they so small they wouldn't matter.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-metale...s-virtual.html

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:33:41 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 1 January 2018 20:33:11 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
But nothing said about other aberrations. Also, the structures on the
surface, would it interfere with keeping it clean, or are they so small they
wouldn't matter.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-metale...s-virtual.html

Hmm. On that page, I saw a link to another article...

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-secret...particles.html

which may mean that science is on the way to making sense out of quantum mechanics finally!

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Integrated circuits are fabricated using light of a single wavelength - but now
they have to switch to extreme ultraviolet, which is hard to handle, as tricks
like "multiple patterning" have reached their limit. Could there be some way to
make different wavelengths work together to resolve detail far below the
diffraction limit for any one of them?

I can't think of one, but _that_ would be an application justifying a great
expense for a special type of lens.

John Savard

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 04:36:39 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:33:41 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 1 January 2018 20:33:11 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
But nothing said about other aberrations. Also, the structures on the
surface, would it interfere with keeping it clean, or are they so small they
wouldn't matter.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-metale...s-virtual.html

Hmm. On that page, I saw a link to another article...

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-secret...particles.html

which may mean that science is on the way to making sense out of quantum mechanics finally!

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Integrated circuits are fabricated using light of a single wavelength - but now
they have to switch to extreme ultraviolet, which is hard to handle, as tricks
like "multiple patterning" have reached their limit. Could there be some way to
make different wavelengths work together to resolve detail far below the
diffraction limit for any one of them?

I can't think of one, but _that_ would be an application justifying a great
expense for a special type of lens.

John Savard

One is reminded of the Fresnel lens but on a much smaller scale.
Commercial exploitation is a strong driver with many potential, global applications.
Organic meta-materials are also waiting in the wings.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:36:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Microprocessors and other chips are now virtually free. Not much is
cheaper than mass produced nanostructures!

The market here isn't things like microscope objectives. The market is
camera lenses in phones. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see
metamaterial lenses like the one described here show up in that
application within just a few years.

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 13:26:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:36:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Microprocessors and other chips are now virtually free. Not much is
cheaper than mass produced nanostructures!

$1000 for the top AMD chip, $2000 for the top Intel processor. As much as an expensive 4" apo.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:07:56 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 13:26:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:36:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Microprocessors and other chips are now virtually free. Not much is
cheaper than mass produced nanostructures!

$1000 for the top AMD chip, $2000 for the top Intel processor. As much as an expensive 4" apo.

Not typical, because they have a small market. Powerful
microprocessors in mass market devices like phones are pennies.

The CPU in the iPhone X (64 bit 6 core) reportedly costs 2,750 pennies. And that’s Apple buying from Apple.

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 19:01:36 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:07:56 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 13:26:41 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 19:36:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

I would expect apochromatic lenses to be far cheaper than nanostructures - I
mean, look at how much microprocessor chips cost - which is not to say that this
research doesn't have a point, but still it might take time before the
technology is useful outside specialized applications. Maybe, if we're really
lucky, it might lead to improved microscope objectives.

Microprocessors and other chips are now virtually free. Not much is
cheaper than mass produced nanostructures!

$1000 for the top AMD chip, $2000 for the top Intel processor. As much as an expensive 4" apo.

Not typical, because they have a small market. Powerful
microprocessors in mass market devices like phones are pennies.

Even for civilians, less than $2.00 ea in some bulk.

https://www.ebay.com/p/NXP-Semicondu...d=311979304417

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 11:51:11 -0800 (PST), Davoud
wrote:

The CPU in the iPhone X (64 bit 6 core) reportedly costs 2,750 pennies. And that’s Apple buying from Apple.

Still pretty cheap! But when considering something like a
nanostructure, a camera chip is probably a better example. The sort
that is found in many consumer devices, and has a similar complexity
to the metamaterial lenses, go for a couple of dollars.