Microscopic Googly Eyes
A small question about making tiny things that can genuinely move.
I’ve been wondering about something very small.
Microfabrication can make extraordinarily complicated structures.
But what about a very simple behaviour?
Could you make a tiny transparent enclosure with another tiny object trapped permanently inside it — except the inner object is genuinely free to move?
Not attached by a hinge.
Not bending.
Actually loose.
And could you move that captive object from outside, perhaps with a magnetic field?
That’s pretty much the whole question.
I don’t particularly care how it’s made.
Maybe lithography. Maybe sacrificial layers. Maybe two-photon printing. Maybe somebody who actually works in this field immediately knows a much better route.
The manufacturing method isn’t the interesting bit to me.
The interesting bit is whether this behaviour could become a reliable little fabrication primitive:
object inside object, permanently captive, independently mobile, externally controllable.
Once you can make one reliably, other questions appear by themselves.
How small can it get?
Does the inner object stick?
Can you manufacture lots at once?
Can they survive repeated movement?
Does one fabrication method scale better than another?
At some point a silly object becomes a useful benchmark simply because it makes failures very obvious.
And that led me to the obvious reference design.
Two transparent circular enclosures.
One dark movable disc inside each.
Pass a magnet nearby.
Get Dominic Pennock’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The discs move.
Which means that after all the serious terminology, fabrication tolerances and microscopy, what you have actually manufactured is:
Microscopic googly eyes.
👀
That’s the bit I like.
You don’t need to explain the engineering before somebody understands the achievement.
There is a tiny thing.
Inside it is another tiny thing.
And the little bastard moves.
A pair also gives you an immediate comparison. If one pupil moves and the other sticks, something went wrong. If they respond differently, you can see it. The joke and the test object become the same thing.
I also wonder whether objects like this are a useful way of thinking about microrobotics more generally.
Maybe tiny machines don’t always need to begin as miniature versions of ordinary robots.
Perhaps it’s useful first to build a vocabulary of extremely simple physical behaviours:
things that turn,
things that flex,
things that trap,
things that release,
things that move inside other things.
Then later somebody combines them into something much more interesting.
Or perhaps microscopic googly eyes turn out to be completely useless.
That’s fine too.
I’m not claiming the geometry is novel, the fabrication is straightforward, or that nobody has built something equivalent already. Existing microfabrication techniques clearly overlap with pieces of the idea.
I just like the question:
What is the simplest way to manufacture an object containing another object that is permanently trapped but genuinely free to move?
And if the easiest way to see whether it worked happens to result in thousands of microscopic eyes staring back from a wafer…
Well.
That seems like a perfectly respectable scientific outcome.
👀
