Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Science Build

LEGO Contraption Allows Scientists To Safely Handle Insects 93

Posted by samzenpus from the build-and-study dept.
sciencehabit writes Researchers have built contraption from LEGOs that can move and rotate insects every which way while keeping them stable and positioned under a microscope. The design improves on previous insect manipulators because it's cheap, customizable, and easy to build. As natural history museums work on digitizing their voluminous collections—taking high-resolution photographs of each precious beetle, bee, and dragonfly in their possession—they have to handle insects repeatedly. Now the job will be easier on the entomologists, and more insect specimens will be able to hang on to their wings—all thanks to LEGOs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LEGO Contraption Allows Scientists To Safely Handle Insects More

LEGO Contraption Allows Scientists To Safely Handle Insects

Comments Filter:

  • One does not, nor did they, need Legos to do this.

    Patent pending?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JanneM ( 7445 )

      Lego is likely quicker to use and more easily accessible than creating the same from "real" mechanical parts. So not necessary, but quicker and easier - and within the zero budget they likely had for doing this.

      • Over the years, I've looked long and hard at Lego kits and parts. I've never found any that fit in a zero budget (thus my limited collection).

    • Re:Cool, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CanadianRealist ( 1258974 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:11PM (#48995453)

      Technically, no they didn't need to use Lego to do this. But it was probably easier to build using Lego. And much easier for them to provide the plans for how to build it that anyone else can easily follow. (Which they do.)

      It would be neat if the Lego picked up the idea and put together a special set that other people could purchase to make it even easier.

    • One does not, nor did they, need Legos to do this.

      Quite right. In fact they pretty much imply that in TFS/TFA:

      The design improves on previous insect manipulators because it's cheap, customizable, and easy to build.

      So the point is not so much that they used Lego to do something that could not be otherwise achieved, but rather that the Lego solution was cheaper, simpler and more flexible.

      But yeah. It could absolutely be done, and presumably has been, without the use of Lego.

    • No, they could have made it out of meccanoes.

    • One does not, nor did they, need Legos to do this.

      I was all ready to make that same objection. I was going to say "it would have made more sense to 3d print it" or something like that. But then I RTFA (I know, I know) and discovered that you would actually be hard-pressed to improve on what they accomplished, because it is so very minimal. Lego gears are better than most of what you will wind up printing.

    • Rapid prototyping, faster than 3D printing.

  • Subjects Are Stupid (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:04PM (#48995421)

    I'll be "that guy" and point out that LEGO is its own plural.

  • Sexist Prick (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:21PM (#48995493)

    I dont know about you guys, but I think Emily is a babe. Totally my thing.

    Yes yes yes, I KNOW that in this day and age, saying how I find her attractive makes me a misogynistic asshole sexist prick who deserves to die in a fire, but fuck you, I stand by my personal opinion.

  • They are called LEGO not LEGOs. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:26PM (#48995511)

    Why are we adding an s?

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 )

      Mr. Farrell, is that you?

    • When most people refer to LEGOs, they aren't referencing the company directly but the blocks used to build. Like Q-Tip, LEGO has become the go-to example of building blocks to the point where people call other brands LEGOs. In that sense, the additional S is fine and it explains why so many people reference to them as such.

    • Technically, it's probably "LEGO® building blocks", where blocks is the plural. I like the shorthand better.

  • Check out http://www.knex.com/ [knex.com]. If you're basically just building frames, it might be the better toy^bol.

  • The headline is written such that it left me to think at first that it was for handling dangerous live insects (say, killer bees, fire ants, etc). The headline should really specify it is for handling insect specimens - or that the device ensures the safety of the insect rather than the handler.
    • ... and I should really use the preview button more often. My comment on a poorly written headline ended up itself having poorly written HTML in it.

    • The headline is written such that it left me to think at first that it was for handling dangerous live insects (say, killer bees, fire ants, etc). The headline should really specify it is for handling insect specimens - or that the device ensures the safety of the insect rather than the handler.

      The insects appear to be dead, impaled on various spikes attached to the LEGO. I'd therefore say its NOT safe for the insects.

    • You could build a box with some transparent bricks or windshields as sides. Use some Technic blocks (the ones with holes) and pins to allow additional air in (to supplement what can get in since the blocks aren't airtight when connected) without allowing larger insects to escape. That would allow you to capture live specimens. But yes, that is not the topic of the article.

  • At first I read Lego contraception (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Now how cool would that be?

    • LEGO is contraception in its own right - just play with LEGO and you can guarantee that you're never having any kids.

    • Re:At first I read Lego contraception (Score:5, Funny)

      by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Friday February 06, 2015 @12:15AM (#48995819)

      Not needed, if you're playing with LEGO you're not going to get laid anyway.

      • My wife and I build things out of legos together all the time. Also, we let the kids participate. If anything is interfering with sex, it's the kids, not the legos.

        And yes, I did say "legos" and not "LEGO bricks." I'm going to be contrarian on this point, because we don't need a bunch of pedantic slashdotters helping LEGO preserve their trademark. They can do that very well on their own, thanks. The rest of us have genericized it. Duplo blocks are legos. Megablocks are legos. Interlocking bricks tha

        • So, why then do you buy Lego? Or to you just liberate it (steal) from the evil megacorp?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Theovon ( 109752 )

            I buy them because I like them. I just don't feel I should have to go out of their way to protect their trademark.

  • Plural of LEGO is NOT LEGOs! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ihtoit ( 3393327 ) on Friday February 06, 2015 @02:10AM (#48996095)

    LEGO is a trademark, you do not pluralise trademarks. The correct plural form of LEGO is LEGO or LEGO bricks.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I am not owned by corporate America. I can say bandaids, kleenexes, and legos if I want.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        neither is LEGO, it's a Danish company.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

          By the way, Band Aid is a genericised trademark (meaning they can't really sue you for using it, fallout from Johnson & Johnson vs. Geldof et. al which set precedent in that names that have fallen into everyday vernacular aren't really defensible - LEGO is very specific and describes precisely ONE product), Kleenex is still a trademark which Kimberly-Clark aggressively defend, and yeah, like I already said about LEGO.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cdrudge ( 68377 )

            By the way, Band Aid is a genericised trademark (meaning they can't really sue you for using it, fallout from Johnson & Johnson vs. Geldof et. al which set precedent in that names that have fallen into everyday vernacular aren't really defensible

            Do you have anything that supports that position?

            Trademarks have always applied to a particular field. McDonalds Heating and Air Conditioning isn't going to cross over into McDonalds the fast food restaurant's turf and it's very unlikely the two would be confuse

            • Trademarks have always applied to a particular field. McDonalds Heating and Air Conditioning isn't going to cross over into McDonalds the fast food restaurant's turf and it's very unlikely the two would be confused for one another.

              Unless you are Apple Music which sued Apple Computer and won, then lost their own trademark later when Apple Computer branched into music.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

                Apple have always called their music subsidiary/operation "iTunes" as far as I know... unless you can show me different, in which case I'll stand corrected.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

              Xerox managed to prevent genericisation of its trademark by encouraging people to use "photocopy" instead of "Xerox". LEGO tried the same thing but it didn't work as well. That's not to say it was a failure, Tyco doesn't call its construction bricks "LEGO" anywhere in its literature. They called them "Blocks and "Super Blocks". Champagnes made and bottled anywhere but the Champagne region of France will quickly find themselves the subject of lawsuits concerning protected regional trademarks - a California B

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rizole ( 666389 )
        You might also want to consider using sheeps, informations, foots and tooths while you're at it.

    • Sand and dust aren't trademarks, but you don't pluralise those either.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        say that to the cartographers who named White Sands and the CCOHS who talk in great detail about various dusts.

        Try again.

    • To be fair, genericised trademarks get pluralised a lot in the UK at least, hoovers for example, and it doesn't sound bad. The reason to not say "LEGOs" is it makes you sound like Ralph Wiggum.

    • Re:Plural of LEGO is NOT LEGOs! (Score:4, Informative)

      by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Friday February 06, 2015 @05:44AM (#48996579)
      Irrelevant - the company themselves say the bricks are called "LEGO", and never "LEGOs". Writing LEGO as Lego is acceptable, however, according to many style guides, but never Legos. That's just sick.

    • When I was a kid, I and all the other kids called them LEGOS. And today, I call them LEGOS. And if you don't like it, you can suck my NUTSACK. (In case you don't know, that's what I call my BALL BAG. I mean scrotum.)

      I'll call Lego whatever I want, and I may just go photoshop some images with The Gimp too

    • Says the marketing department, thanks to legal's insistence not to allow their trademark to be genericized. That's nothing to do with the fluidity of language and convenient shorthand.

    • Man I had a cold so I used a lot of Kleenexes, after I got better I went to the mall and got lost so I had to ride a lot of the Escalators to find the home and garden store, where I was able to get a few Weed Eaters one for me and another for my neighbor.

      Often a trademark becomes a noun too. Especially if such trademark represents a particular product.

      Or in other words, get over yourself, and enjoy live it isn't worth it to have a fit about useless stuff like this.

    • Counterexample: Realtors

  • It's all fun and games, until you do the dreaded midnight stomp on a Lego.

    Pain unlike any other.

    • Those 1x1 blocks are evil, they slip into the carpet and always seem to catch you right on the heel.

  • Researchers have built **a** contraption from **Legos** that

    You use an article before a noun.

    Legos is not an acronym. You do not capitalize all the letters in it.

    Argh. Please. Proofread before you post.

    • LEGO is a trademark, and it is an all capital trademark. LEGO corporation however prefers people not pluralize LEGO, and instead type it as LEGO style bricks.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close