The articles I choose for review & contrast is about ‘Trio of European Scientists Winning Noble Prize for Revolutionary Invention of World’s Smallest Machines’. These are the references to those articles:
CBSNewsTeam. (2016, 10 6). Chemistry Nobel goes to makers of world’s smallest machines. Retrieved from CBSNews: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nobel-prize-chemistry-worlds-smallest-machines-molecular-machines/
KENNETH CHANG, SEWELL CHAN. (2016, 10 5). 3 Makers of World’s Smallest Machines Awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Retrieved from NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/science/nobel-prize-chemistry.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChemistry&_r=0
Melanie Ehrenkran, Mic. (2016, 10 5). These inventors of ‘the worlds smallest machines’ just won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Retrieved from BusinessInsider: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-inventors-of-the-worlds-smallest-machines-just-won-the-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-2016-10
Three pioneers in the improvement of nano-machines, made of moving molecules, were granted the Nobel Prize in Chemistry on Wednesday. Molecular machines, the world’s littlest mechanical devices, may in the end be utilized to make new materials, sensors and vitality storage systems, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences commended them while reporting the prize.
As far as advancement, the molecular engine is at an indistinguishable stage from the electric engine was in the 1830s, when researchers showed different spinning wrenches and wheels, unconscious that they would prompt electric trains, clothes washers, fans and nourishment processors.
Nanotechnology, the creation of structures on the size of a nanometer, or a billionth of a meter has been a field of productive research for two or three decades. Presently, researchers are figuring out how to develop little moving machines around one-thousandth the width of a strand of human hair. The initial move toward making a molecular machine was making a moving part. Chemists have for quite some time possessed the capacity to blend ring-formed molecules, and they realized that interlocking rings may function as molecular parts.
A charged copper ion basically went about as a pin around which to frame the interlocking rings, he found. Once the rings were associated, the copper ion could be evacuated. These molecules got to be known as catenanes. The bits of the molecule were held together mechanically, similar to joins in a chain, instead of the typical compound bonds. Dr. Stoddart made the following development in 1991. Rather than two interlocking rings, Dr. Stoddart, then at the University of Birmingham in Britain, and his partners incorporated a rotaxane: a ring molecule wrapped around a dumbbell-molded pivot. The ring slides forward and backward along the dumbbell, similar to a globule on a math device.
Dr. Stoddart went ahead to build a little computer chip that was basically a molecular math device, and in addition other complex devices. One was made out of three rotaxanes whose rings were associated with shape a bigger stage that could rise 0.7 billionths of a meter: a molecular lift. Rotaxanes twisting dainty layers of gold acted like an artificial muscle, he found. As a sidelight, Dr. Sauvage and Dr. Stoddart utilized their strategies to make molecules that turned in confounded knots.
In 2011, they fabricated a four-wheel-drive molecular auto. Four of the molecular engines went about as wheels, associated by a nano-frame. The three men strengthened the field of topological chemistry. They were pioneers in the second flood of nanotechnology, a field that the physicist Richard P. Feynman, additionally a Nobel laureate, anticipated as right on time as 1959. He gave a fundamental address in 1984, around the end of his life, on outline and designing at the molecular scale.
In living creatures, nature has delivered a huge number of molecular machines that ship materials around cells, build proteins and separation cells. Artificial molecular machines are still primitive by examination, however researchers can as of now envision applications later on.
Dr. Feringa, the maker communicated his standards as consider nano-machines, miniaturized scale robots, consider small robots that the specialist later on will infuse in your blood veins, and they go scan for disease cells or going to convey drugs, for example. The technology could likewise prompt the creation of shrewd materials that change properties in light of outside signals.
Contrast & Similarities:
Upon reading these three articles, I found the content and approach quite similar, all articles started with a similar tone. I will briefly state the facts that I found to be written in same tone in all three articles:
On Wednesday, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences declared that three European chemists won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for making the world’s littlest machines. As far as improvement, the molecular engine is at an indistinguishable stage from the electric engine was in the 1830s, when researchers showed different spinning wrenches and wheels, unconscious that they would prompt electric trains, clothes washers, fans and nourishment processors. As it were, these incline, mean, molecule-moving machines demonstrate a considerable measure of potential yet have far to go.
Where others failed to mention the reasoning behind their motivation article from NYTimes (KENNETH CHANG, SEWELL CHAN, 2016) gave the detailed overview and described many things about the ideals of the Nobel winners. NYTimes also shared their vision i.e. the researchers see these fabricated molecular machines as conceivably being utilized to explore your circulation system for different medicinal reasons, for example, searching for destructive cells or conveying drugs. They additionally observe the smaller scale robots as promoting the field of receptive keen materials these nano-machines are being viewed as making ready for self-maintaining brilliant urban communities.
Strengths & Weaknesses:
As NYTimes was actually the main reporting source their article was more strong and filled with details technical and otherwise. It unequivocally explained the true nature of the invention and shared insights from Nobel winners. It (KENNETH CHANG, SEWELL CHAN, 2016) was well written and easier to understand for non-chemists where as other two failed to convey proper idea and heart of the achievement. Rather than focusing on how or what they’ve done, (CBSNewsTeam, 2016) focused more on the impacts. The details I found in (CBSNewsTeam, 2016) are as:
Machines at the molecular level are 1,000th the width of a human hair and have taken chemistry to another dimension, Molecular machines will in all likelihood be utilized as a part of the advancement of things, for example, new materials, sensors and vitality storage systems.
Stoddart has officially built up a molecule-based computer chip with 20 kB memory. Scientists trust chips so little may revolutionize computer technology the way silicon-based transistors once did.
A year ago, the Nobel prize in chemistry went to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar for their exploration into the components that cells use to repair DNA. Their work mapped and clarified how the phone repairs its DNA so as to avoid mistakes happening in hereditary information.