quote Science-fiction movies portray volumetric systems that provide not only visual but also tactile and audible three-dimensional (3D) content. Displays based on swept-volume surfaces, holography, optophoretics, plasmonics or lenticular lenslets can create 3D visual content without the need for glasses or additional instrumentation. However, they are slow, have limited persistence-of-vision capabilities and, most importantly, rely on operating principles that cannot produce tactile and auditive content as well. Here we present the multimodal acoustic trap display (MATD): a levitating volumetric display that can simultaneously deliver visual, auditory and tactile content, using acoustophoresis as the single operating principle. Our system traps a particle acoustically and illuminates it with red, green and blue light to control its colour as it quickly scans the display volume. Using time multiplexing with a secondary trap, amplitude modulation and phase minimization, the MATD delivers simultaneous auditive and tactile content. The system demonstrates particle speeds of up to 8.75 metres per second and 3.75 metres per second in the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively, offering particle manipulation capabilities superior to those of other optical or acoustic approaches demonstrated until now. In addition, our technique offers opportunities for non-contact, high-speed manipulation of matter, with applications in computational fabrication and biomedicine.

That (obviously) is the abstract or overview from the recent report that I alluded to, in the science journal "Nature." (Not my previous message, but the message before that.)

There have been times when I put up an abstract of this kind, valuing it for its opacity. Its (likely) unintelligibility to anyone who is not involved in that (whatever) kind of research. For effect.

But this abstract is very readable. I do not claim any mastery or competence whatsoever, vis-a-vis some of the particular words and phrases, including (but not limited to) "optophoretics" and "time multiplexing with a secondary trap," but overall, I "get" it, and I put it up here because ... I thought it was important for one or more other members of this online forum?

No, I only used it to bump the thread and in so doing, elicit ... [anyone can take it from there.]

Boondawg really nailed it, with the first remarks that he entered into this conversation.

I have preferred the capitalization of "Original Post" because I think it's an odd or peculiar terminology that does not exist in common parlance, outside of the Internet messages board or online forum space. If I used the all lower case "original post," that could (IMO) all too easily slide by without eliciting the desired interpretation of the message.

But beyond that, "I'm not going to say" (a Carter Page-ism) that there has not been even a single recent instance of a Gratuitous or Idiosyncratic Capitalization that I have indulged in, seeking to express an emphasis or to remark a certain phraseology where an all lower case articulation would very possibly have been deemed by subject matter experts in print and online media as more in line with commonly accepted publishing standards and guidelines, or MILWCAPSAG.

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-03-2019).]