Graphene Can Be Made With Table Sugar

Zothecula writes with this snippet from Gizmag: "There's no doubt that the discovery of graphene is one sweet breakthrough. The remarkable material offers everything from faster, cooler electronics and cheaper lithium-ion batteries to faster DNA sequencing and single-atom transistors. Researchers at Rice University have made graphene even sweeter by developing a way to make pristine sheets of the one-atom-thick form of carbon from plain table sugar and other carbon-based substances. In another plus, the one-step process takes place at temperatures low enough to make the wonder material easy to manufacture."

Comments

Who'll profit?

[ciaran_o_riordan]

The graphene story is an excellent case study for innovation policy

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Inequality_between_small_and_large_patent_holders#Small_patent_holders_have_a_weak_negotiating_position

Inventing graphene gets you nothing, but inventing applications for it will make you rich.

Really a prizes system seems to be worth trying as a replacement for the patent system in some fields. How many millions does the patent system cost our governments? What if there were multi-million dollar prizes up for grabs, and freedom to operate for everyone, instead of monopolies?

(Yeh, the lawyers won't help us lobby for this change...)

Re:Who'll profit?

[Sockatume]

Nobody invented graphene. It was discovered, rendering it basically unpatentable, so I'm not sure why not sure what that has to do with small patent holders. However with regards to your second point, inventing a clever way of creating it was worth the Nobel Prize.

Re:Who'll profit?

[rolfwind]

Against Intellectual Property by Boldrin and Leving is a good book:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/intellectual.htm

However, you say how much money Patents cost the Government? It costs them nothing (well something but it's recuperated in taxes, fees, and corporate income tax) -- the real cost is societal.

However, corps are still under the dream that China will play nice and all that, and they'll get into that huge market. The truth is, countries don't follow IP laws until it is in their interest to do so (America did the same in her early history) and that means when China is ready to follow IP laws, it's only because they'll be so invested and huge that they'll crush us in our own game.

Re:Who'll profit?

[Musically_ut]

Nobody invented graphene. It was discovered, rendering it basically unpatentable, so I'm not sure why not sure what that has to do with small patent holders. However with regards to your second point, inventing a clever way of creating it was worth the Nobel Prize.

I would not say that Grephene was not patentable. The Nobel prize winners were on the verge of doing it, but they did not as they said in their interview.

And it seems they did so with good reason.

Re:Who'll profit?

[biryokumaru]

Well, actually, the present system only rewards marketable advances. What about people who do pure science? If you create a system that only rewards greedy people who can only look ahead for the short time until their patent runs out, then those people will have all the power. Maybe we should re-gear the system to reward people for innovating, not for coming up with a new, clever way to overcharge people.

first graphene production

[neanderlander]

On a side note, Andre Geim supposedly designed the first graphene production process like this: his students used scotch-tape to pull thin layers of graphite from a piece of paper with pencil drawings on it.

Re:first graphene production

[MrQuacker]

On a side note, scotch tape releases x-rays when you peel it: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/10/gallery_xray_tape?slide=1&slideView=7

Re:first graphene production

[Ramble]

I'm lucky enough to actually do research on graphene, this method is still used (albeit carefully and in a clean room so it's not as flippant as it sounds).

'...and other carbon-based substances'

[RDW]

Soylent Graphene is people!

Re:'...and other carbon-based substances'

[Hognoxious]

Enterprise is infested with carbon units.

Re:HOLY SHIT?

[zrbyte]

More fun facts: Some people have made carbon nanotubes from grass.

Re:HOLY SHIT?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

OMFG!!! This is fucking amazing!!

Nanotubes from grass? Who is going to tell my fucking dealer????

Re:Sweet

[Sockatume]

"CO2 -> material" is a problem of energy rather than chemistry. The energy generated by making CO2 is less than the energy needed to turn that CO2 into something useful (assuming useful materials have a substantially higher enthalpy of formation and lower entropy than fuels). So you have to have an energy source which is capable of replacing fossil fuels first.

DIY?

[siddesu]

Can I make it at home? And use it in a 3D printer?

Re:DIY?

[marcosdumay]

You can make it at home, but an 800C furnance may be more expensive than you think (but still within reach of an individual). You'll probably no be able to do anything usefull with it (on a 3D printer or anywhere else).

Re:How much does the USPTO cost?

[TheRaven64]

The US patent office does not get to keep patent fees. They go into the general budget and then some percentage is returned by the federal government. This percentage may be greater than 100%, in which case they'd be costing money, but given that they go up to tens of thousands of dollars for patents more than a decade old it seems unlikely.

Single Atoms?

[Ramble]

Single atom transistors? Where are they getting this from? I do work with graphene and to introduce a bandgap (either in single or multilayer sheets) you need to introduce an energy difference between atoms - in the case of a single sheet you do that by using a substrate with a similar structure (e.g. Boron nitride) so the two basis atoms of graphene experience different energies or in the case of multiple sheets you can use an electric field ala FETs. In no way could you do this with a single atom as graphene has no band gap and is thus a metal normally.

Re:interconnects

[John Hasler]

Not yet. First they have to figure out how to either create it on top of silicon dioxide or make it elsewhere and transfer it there. Getting the formation temperature down below the point where doped silicon is damaged is progress, though.

Re:Dude.

[bughunter]

Ingredients: Sand, Aluminum, natural and artificial flavoring.

Re:How much does the USPTO cost?

[Grond]

The PTO is funded by user fees. The problem is that if they take in more fees than they budgeted for, the rest goes to general revenue to be spent on other things. When the economy turns downward, the PTO ends up taking in less in fees than its fixed costs (building maintenance, salaries, etc). The 'budget expansion' you're referring to is a plan to essentially refund some of the almost $1 billion in excess fees that have been taken from the PTO over the years. Part of it would make up for the current budget shortfall and part of it would be used for infrastructure improvements like IT upgrades.

You can find out all you want to know (and more!) about the PTO budget in its 2011 budget report. On page 2 you'll find "USPTO is a fully fee funded agency (with fee collections appropriated by the Congress), and does not rely on regular funding from the General Treasury."

For those of you wondering how the PTO can have budget problems when the number of patent applications is at or near record highs: the cost of examination is not fully paid for on the front end. Much of the cost is made up on the back end through maintenance fees. The problem right now has more to do with patent holders letting patents go abandoned (and thus not paying maintenance fees) than it does application rates dropping off. This is discussed in page 7 of the budget report I linked.

Re:From the article: "five-atom rings in fluorene"

[reverseengineer]

Fluorene is a hydrocarbon compound named for its fluorescence. Despite what the name suggests, it contains no fluorine.