- Participants explored the feasibility of a low-cost, open-source atomic-force microscope (AFM) as a “RepRap for nanomanipulation,” comparing it to existing DIY scanning-tunneling microscope (STM) projects such as Dan Berard’s home-built STM.  
- Etching ultra-sharp tungsten tips via alkaline soap-bubble etching or simple wire-yanking was proposed for STM tips, while quartz tuning forks were suggested as inexpensive force sensors for AFM cantilevers, potentially avoiding MEMS fabrication.  
- A MEMS-actuated commercial benchtop AFM (ICSPI nGauge) was cited: $250 probes, 80 nm tip width, and “request-for-quote” pricing, highlighting the cost gap a DIY design could fill.  
- Discussion of Chinese-journal paywalls noted that Sci-Hub rarely mirrors Chinese titles (e.g., CNKI, Physica Sinica), and registration requires Chinese phone numbers; participants considered African universities under Chinese influence as possible leak sources.  
- Concerns were raised about the long-term archiving of open-access literature; ideas included government-mandated hard-drive pre-loading with Sci-Hub content and duplicate-detection schemes to ensure redundancy.  
- A brief side thread on 0- vs 1-based array indexing argued that higher-level abstractions make the debate moot, yet 1-based indexing reportedly reduces off-by-one errors for some developers.  
- Micro-EDM power-supply literature was criticized for misstating capacitor energy (Q = ½CV² instead of Q = CV), prompting a “design in a mental vacuum” approach to avoid propagating errors.  
- Imaging acoustic waves with laser-generated ultrasound and acoustic “lenses” was floated as a route to high-resolution, non-vacuum microscopy, paralleling the AFM/STM discussion.