Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Claims Breakthrough In Graphene Chip Design

Posted by timothy on from the wopr-will-run-much-faster-after-the-upgrade dept.

jfruh (300774) writes "Graphene, a carbon-based crystalline lattice that is extremely strong, lightweight, and an excellent conductor of electricity and heat, is coveted as a potential base for semiconductor chip design, and Samsung, working with the Sungkyungkwan University School of Advanced Materials Science and Engineering, has claimed a big jump towards that goal. With IBM also making progress in this realm, the days of silicon could actually be numbered."

88 comments

  1. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's all still lab stuff but it shows that silicon's days are numbered

    That's what they said about XP.

    --
    Have you read my journal today?
    1. Re:Moo by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      And MS DOS.

    2. Re:Moo by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      And FAT

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    3. Re:Moo by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      And mainframe computers.

  2. Producing them is one thing by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Producing them cheaply enough to rival chips made of processed sand is another matter entirely. Anyone remember gallium arsenide chips that were going to eat silicon for lunch back in the 80s? Yeah , well.... still niche.

    1. Re:Producing them is one thing by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because silicon dropped in price rather dramatically.
      I don't really see any process on the horizon that will cause another drop like that. It would require a break through making = 22nm fabs much cheaper to build and maintain.

      If they made a significant break through where they are competitive, then things will change fast.
      The demand for more efficient chips has never been higher.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Producing them is one thing by AmbiLobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The expansion of carbon does not match the expansion of insulators when the temperature changes. Silicon matches the thermal size changes of silicon dioxide. If Samsung has matched the coefficients of expansion, it is big news. But that was not announced.

    3. Re:Producing them is one thing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Silicon has always been cheaper, not just recently. Any fancy substrate or switch technology will be unusable as a replacement for silicon if it can't at least approach the density of silicon circuits. We can manufacture extremely complex circuits using the very simple procedures of silicon crystal growing, doping, photolithography, and epitaxy. The moderate cost of modern ICs in the middle of the synchronous price-per-component curve (as per Moore's law) is the result of the combination of these simple procedures (which are ridiculously simplistic when it comes to simple components) with doing them at extreme geometrical complexities (which is *the* thing that makes ICs expensive). Even if you could demonstrate a single graphene switch today, you would still be where Jean Hoerni's planar silicon transistor was in 1960. Now find out how this supposedly very tough material can be either deposited and grown into proper shapes or substractively machined at nanoscale, and all that at high speeds needed for mass IC manufacture.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Producing them is one thing by Warbothong · · Score: 2

      Producing them cheaply enough to rival chips made of processed sand is another matter entirely. Anyone remember gallium arsenide chips that were going to eat silicon for lunch back in the 80s? Yeah , well.... still niche.

      To a first approximation, I'd say the cost of "applying sticky-tape to coal" isn't very different to "processing sand".

      Gallium Arsenide, on the other hand, sounds complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    5. Re:Producing them is one thing by fishybell · · Score: 1

      They have to grow silicon crystals too, and it is very complex and expensive to get a pure single crystal, but the source material is readily available and the process has been refined for decades. I imagine that the Gallium Arsenide process you're pointing to is used mostly because it's so similar to what they've been doing with silcon.

      --
      ><));>
    6. Re:Producing them is one thing by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OR... they could pull off a 16bit chip that can withstand temps up to 3000 degrees and is impervious to EMP attacks and you have the defense industry paying you all the money you want to figure it out.

    7. Re:Producing them is one thing by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2
      Silicon ain't no picnic either.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    8. Re:Producing them is one thing by camelrider · · Score: 2

      The expansion of carbon does not match the expansion of insulators when the temperature changes. Silicon matches the thermal size changes of silicon dioxide. If Samsung has matched the coefficients of expansion, it is big news. But that was not announced.

      This insight deserves more than one mod-point! It's the key. For some types of processors or memory size may not be as important as speed or electrical efficiency, but without a compatible insulating layer they can't be built.

    9. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What would the point be? We don't have any other things that can stand up to 3000 degrees anyways. And when they do, they do so for so short a time that it's irrelevant. Look at the Sprint ABM. It's a anti-ICBM missile from the '70s. It went 0-Mach 10 in 5 seconds. Yes, 10 times the speed of sound at sea level. From a stand still. In *5* seconds. Never mind the approximately 100 g acceleration, the skin of the nose of the missile was white hot after 1.5 seconds.

      So what? A few seconds later it detonated its nuclear warhead. We have insulation that can last a few seconds. So?

    10. Re:Producing them is one thing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I never said it wasn't. I said it dropped dramatically.
      So much so that the cost difference didn't make the gains from gallium arsenide moot.
      Then you could through more computers at the problem for less money.
      Does everyone need every detail of simple concept spelled out for them now?

      Yes, that is why I mentioned about fabs. In your haste to seem smart and important, you just let everyone know your ability to deeply understand anything is..lacking.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that transistors are thermoelectric devices. You switch them on and off by heating them up to change their conductivity. Silicon chips can withstand temperatures well beyond the point at which the plastic packages they are mounted to break down, but that temperature is also well beyond their switching point, making them useless as a computational device.

      If you could produce a semiconductor that was useful at 3000F, then that would be its normal operating temperature, and you would need to feed it a high enough core voltage to allow it to heat itself up to that temperature to switch.

    12. Re:Producing them is one thing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      Except that your comment was lacking in clear referents, which - naturally - created potential for misunderstanding. Especially in the "drop like that" part, it was quite unclear to me whether with the "any process" you were referring to incremental improvements within the existing silicon technology (dropping prices for one silicon switch even further) or whether it was supposed to be progress effected by an arbitrary technology switch (dropping prices for a fast switch in general, for example, the way how things that used to be manufactured in silicon ECL logic or GaAs in the 1980s - say, vector processors - are being manufactured in high-performance silicon CMOS today). I understood it as the latter (given the fact that the whole context is a potential large-scale industry switch to graphene, and given the fact that Viol8 was referring to GaAs and material technology development on the scale of decades - and three decades ago, there were many more material and logic technologies in common use), but apparently, you meant the former, at least in that particular sentence. (And you wonder that I find that confusing?)

      Yes, that is why I mentioned about fabs.

      But these have nothing to do with the subject of TFA, so I can't see how one could possibly link my comment to your remark on 22nm fab problems.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bewmmmm

    14. Re:Producing them is one thing by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but a chip that could function while immersed in molten lava seems like it would be pretty handy to those that like to blow things up.

    15. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have enemies that live in volcanoes? And they can be defeated with 16 bit processors made of graphene? Oh, to be eight again!

    16. Re:Producing them is one thing by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1
      "The problem is that transistors are thermoelectric devices. You switch them on and off by heating them up to change their conductivity."

      Um, what?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    17. Re:Producing them is one thing by homm2 · · Score: 1

      How did this get rated +4, insightful? Transistors are not fundamentally thermoelectric devices.

      Thermal issues are very important in modern semiconductors, but the switching action of a transistor is not achieved by heating them to change their conductivity. Transistors function by altering bandgaps at the junctions between different semiconductors (or differently doped regions of silicon).

    18. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You put electricity in it and it gets hot. Check and mate.

    19. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "GaAs is the semiconductor of the future!" ...and always will be lol

      long live king Si!

    20. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      What controls the band gap? Supplying energy to excite atoms and cause electrons to jump to the next shell, opening up holes that increases electrical conduction. What defines the amount of energy in an atom? Heat. What is the measurement for bulk heat density? Temperature. So, as temperature goes down, the heat content goes down, and energy state goes down. The semiconductor becomes an insulator. As temperature goes up, heat content goes up, energy state goes up, and you're now a conductor. Hence, semiconductors are fundamentally thermally controlled electric (thermoelectric) devices.

      If your chip's temperature brings the energy level above its band gap, your semiconductor will simply not function, and this temperature is well below your semiconductors functional mechanical limits. If your chip's temperature means the energy level is well below the band gap, your semiconductor will need to run at a high core voltage and consume a large amount of power to bring the energy level (and temperature) of the gates up such that they will conduct and switch.

    21. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Yes. That is how a semiconductor functions. At low temperatures, you're below the band gap, requiring energy be supplied to excite the atoms, bump electrons to a higher shell, open holes, and increase conductivity. At high temperatures, you're above the band gap, and you can't function because you're always a conductor.

    22. Re:Producing them is one thing by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Producing them cheaply enough to rival chips made of processed sand is another matter entirely....

      So we move on to processed coal, seems cheap to me.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    23. Re:Producing them is one thing by Woek · · Score: 1

      :-D Where are the mod points when you need them?

    24. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-effect_transistor

    25. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Yes. You apply an electric field to the semiconductor, energizing a percentage of the atoms beyond the band gap, opening up holes to allow conduction. You add energy to the system. In other words, you raise the temperature.

    26. Re:Producing them is one thing by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      There are other high-temperature materials besides ceramic that can be used as the outer casing.

      Graphene is an organic molecule, which will have thermal expansion properties more closely related to those of other organic molecules containing aromatic ring structures, because of the bond energies and bond angles involved.

      Say, something like aramid.

      The only issue with aramid that I can think of is that it cannot be melted. (It has no melting point. It thermally decomposes before melting.) To "mold" aramid, the molecules have to be dissolved in a very strong acid. This would greatly complicate chip casing manufacture.

      There are other aromatic ring structure based polymers though.

    27. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear JJ Thompson, electrons are independent particles from the nucleus, and can be moved around by mere electric fields, not heating up the entire atom.

    28. Re:Producing them is one thing by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      That's not what you said. You said "You switch them on and off by heating them up to change their conductivity. ", which is both utterly wrong and an amazing claim to make.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    29. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're WRONG. Your posts seem to indicate you've concocted your own "understanding" of how electronics works from some rather surprising sources. It's hodge-podge of misunderstandings and completely wrong claims. You won't find a single textbook anywhere that will back you up on this. Anywhere.

      "Excite" is not what you think it means either. That isn't what's going on. This discussion is pointless since, like a religion, you arrived at your conclusions through faith, and not understanding. You got there yourself, and only you can get you back out.

    30. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hm, where can I get an oscilloscope that's set to degrees C/cm? I mean I guess all these measurements are in the wrong units! I love the "opening up" of holes concept, a totally made-up concept unique to you. Please explain how a vacuum tube conducts?

      There are no atoms in this case, a stream of electrons is going from the cathode to the anode in a vacuum and a voltage is applied to the grid....

      Where are the "holes" please? How does your temperature controlled conduction theory apply to a vacuum?

    31. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      That is correct. When you excite the outer shell of electrons, causing them to jump to a higher energy state, and allow conduction, you have added energy (heat) to the system. However you want to go about supplying that heat to the system, you have heated it up, and heating it up has in turn make the semiconductor conductive. It is a thermally regulated electric device.

    32. Re:Producing them is one thing by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "vacuum tubes" are also called "thermionic valves", right?

    33. Re:Producing them is one thing by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Find me a university textbook that states that.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    34. Re:Producing them is one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You do realize that's because that's what makes the electrons jump into the vacuum, right? But you are claiming it's the heat that CONTROLS or modulates the device.

      Please respond to the question, do not sidestep, do not distract , do not obfuscate:

      You said "you switch them on and off by heating them up to change their conductivity.", implying that somehow heating up a transistor is how they are controlled. Pray tell, are you implying that turning a transistor OFF cools it? You do realize that turning a transistor off actually makes it as hot as turning it on? Otherwise a square wave oscillator would never heat up in your world. And yet, it does.

      Never mind the fact that transistors are not fundamentally digital devices (I can link you to the proof of that but you'll ignore that as well)

      So, where are the atoms in a vacuum tube, how does the voltage of the control grid change the temperature of the vacuum?

      Then we'll see how that translates over.

      You do also realize that there are cold cathode tubes?

      And why are you talking about the opening of holes? Is this a subtle goatse troll?

      Also, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a band gap is.

  3. This violates apple patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure they will be getting sued soon.

    1. Re:This violates apple patent by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Are the graphene chips rounded rectangles?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:This violates apple patent by lgw · · Score: 3

      I figured the whole graphene craze was just a last-ditch attempt to get around Apple's patent on sand (part of their patent on glass).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Was this a PR statement or major breakthrough? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That seems like an odd announcement to make...if it's just one more step in the research process and this doesn't make graphene a viable replacement *yet*...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Was this a PR statement or major breakthrough? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      That seems like an odd announcement to make...if it's just one more step in the research process and this doesn't make graphene a viable replacement *yet*...

      It's about the research funding and securing more... They must be out of money so they need to go out hawking their wares to secure more R&D funding.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Was this a PR statement or major breakthrough? by sumakor · · Score: 2

      It is big step towards making graphene a viable, scaleable technology rather than a lab experiment.

  5. silicon could actually be numbered. by Selur · · Score: 1

    -> more silicon for female frontal tuning ;)

    1. Re:silicon could actually be numbered. by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      that would be SILICONE ...

    2. Re:silicon could actually be numbered. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're assuming he's referring to an actual human being; for his purposes the useage was correct ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:silicon could actually be numbered. by JDeane · · Score: 2

      This thread does give me an idea... Breast implants that double as computers... of course nipples as a mouse might make things awkward in public.

      "I'm checking my email you perv!!!" *slap* lol

  6. round corners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they make a rectangle with round corners? Wait that was the other guys...

  7. Where will Graphene Vally be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hoping for "Not America".

    1. Re:Where will Graphene Vally be? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      US, Japan, Korea, or China I suspect. Only two of those encourage any kind of immigration, which you would probably want for a big international center of innovation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Where will Graphene Vally be? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      What? Only one of those accepts immigration in any significant numbers.

      Japan is notoriously xenophobic and does not let immigrants in (hence the crazy search for robot nurses). Korea is only slightly less so. Chinese are generally not as xenophobic as these two, but China has so many people already that there's still a huge outflow of people out of China into all corners of the world.

    3. Re:Where will Graphene Vally be? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      China is very lax on ex-pats. It is very easy for me as an American to go work in China. It's not quite "immigration", but it does let them build up a big international center. Korea and Japan are straight out. Europe is almost (just?) as bad for the most part.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  8. In the meantime... by Alejux · · Score: 0

    Apple researchers develop new finger swapping technology for the next iOS!

  9. Incompetent article writer? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that an article whose author claims that "Germanium ... doesn't occur naturally" and that "400Ghz ... should make for some strong signals" ought to be taken with a very large lab-grown monocrystal of salt.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Incompetent article writer? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I think that an article whose author claims that "Germanium ... doesn't occur naturally" and that "400Ghz ... should make for some strong signals" ought to be taken with a very large lab-grown monocrystal of salt.

      Very good advice. I'd mod this up if I had any points today.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Incompetent article writer? by Desler · · Score: 1

      It's an ITWorld article. What exactly were you expecting?

    3. Re:Incompetent article writer? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not even it's real name. It should be Deutschium. But you can't expect linguistic correctness in a scientific article.

    4. Re:Incompetent article writer? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In German, shouldn't that be Deutschenstoff? ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Incompetent article writer? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I like how he called in an element, correctly, then said it doesn't occur in nature.
      I kept rereading it thinking I missed a word.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Incompetent article writer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanium

      "Unlike silicon, it is too reactive to be found naturally on Earth in the free (native) state."

      Could that be why?

  10. Original article... by Heraklit · · Score: 2

    Here's the original article (paywalled, Science magazine): https://www.sciencemag.org/con...

  11. Take that peak silicone! by sinij · · Score: 1

    This is alternative silicone we all were waiting for, so now we can have less reliable, a lot more expensive "eco" solution to all our computing needs.

    1. Re:Take that peak silicone! by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      Silicon -not- silicone.
      I have seen silicone peaks, and they are entirely different.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Take that peak silicone! by Desler · · Score: 1

      Huh? Silicone is what is in lubricants, caulking, old breast implants, cookware, etc. What relevance does it have to graphene and ICs?

    3. Re:Take that peak silicone! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They were too busy being clever to spell correctly.
      Or maybe he was just thinking of boobs when he wrote it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Take that peak silicone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is not thinking of boobs actually a thing?

  12. Seriously, this is great news! by sumakor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Graphene needed this technological development. It was a pre-requisite for electronics applications, which are currently based on large single crystal silicon wafers. For comparison, this is something that's yet to be achieved with carbon nanotubes, which still have no electronics applications despite being 13 years older than graphene and having excellent properties. People have the same attitude towards graphene: yeah it's great, but it may never be integrated into any mass-produced products and it may just die out and fade away. So if Samsung can grow monocrystalline graphene many inches across, it moves graphene from some pie-in-the-sky research material like nanotubes to something we could actually commercialize. It knocks out one of the big legs from the "Graphene will never replace silicon," argument. Although not all the questions about graphene have been answered, this advance makes those questions and their answers matter a lot more to many more people than they did last week.

    1. Re:Seriously, this is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Does NRAM count?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Seriously, this is great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the product that doesn't exist and likely never will? Yeah, one day we'll all have 3D printed NRAM tablets powered by Solaren space-based solar arrays! Whatever...

    3. Re:Seriously, this is great news! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So then... no?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  13. You're holding them wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are elongated spheres

  14. What a differnec e a couple of year can make. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    With IBM also making progress in this realm, the days of silicon could actually be numbered.

    IBM: Graphene as it is won't replace silicon in CPUs

    1. Re:What a differnec e a couple of year can make. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      SIgh. The article you link, from 2011, says "yet"
      Its all about creating a band gap, with with silcon doping*.
      However, their is research in this area.

      http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.p...

      *yeah yeah, but people get the idea.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What a differnec e a couple of year can make. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I realize that I typo-ed this hell out of the subject line, It was supposed to be "What a difference a couple of years can make." But that was my entire point.

  15. But Apple has already patented it. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    It does not matter what Samsung invents or when it invents it. Apple has already patented it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  16. Graphene products - where to dump them?? by bmullan · · Score: 2

    Computer/Electronic waste is already such a huge problem that whole companies exist whose existance is to ship that waste to 3rd world countries where they are more or less dumped to contaminate water & soils.
    Since from everything I've read Graphene is nearly indestructable.... "It would take an elephant, balanced on a pencil, to break through a sheet of graphene the thickness of Saran Wrap [cling film]." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro...

    Before it becomes the next asbestos or coal-ash.. that no one "wants in their town"... anyone heard how Graphene based waste would be handled??

    1. Re:Graphene products - where to dump them?? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      Man, where can I get that kind of a pencil?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:Graphene products - where to dump them?? by Friggo · · Score: 1

      Since graphene is pure coal, it would be rather easy to burn it.
      I am sure it would be quite easy to make it react with other chemicals to dissolve it. Maybe you could even make alcohol from it? The possibilities are endless. Just because it is mechanically strong doesn't mean it is indestructible.

    3. Re:Graphene products - where to dump them?? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Sure. Heat it up past the critical point in the presence of oxygen.

      Graphene is carbon, and the thermal decomposition of carbon as a fuel source has been documented for many many centuries.

      A complex designed to thermally decompose the graphene (and any organic substrates it may be bound to), followed by acid and alkaline recovery washes to reclaim the doping agents from the ashes could effectively handle graphene ewaste.

      The issue with silicon, is that the thermal decomposition temperature is very excessive, and difficult to contend with. It likes to form this stuff called "glass", instead of decomposing into an easily separable substance, like CO2.

    4. Re:Graphene products - where to dump them?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      graphene would be really subseptible to inceneration. it would puff in a cloud of carbon dioxide. sounds greener then the nasties that turn into a toxic sludge from electronics.

  17. Patented, and never licensed to Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe if they want to use Samsung's Graphene Process in the future they can pay a small premium, say, $2B or so that matches what they're claiming for Samsung's use of a few trivial patents.

  18. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well come on then, tell us!

  19. See Apple, THIS is innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike rounded rectangles and 'slide to unlock'.