Slashdot Mirror


Graphene: Fast, Strong, Cheap, and Impossible To Use

An anonymous reader writes: We keep hearing about the revolutionary properties of graphene, an atom-thick sheet of carbon whose physical characteristics hold a great deal of promise — if we can figure out good ways to produce it and use it. The New Yorker has a lengthy profile of graphene and its discoverer, Andre Geim, as well as one of the physicists leading a big chunk of the bleeding-edge graphene research, James Tour.

Quoting: "[S]cientists are still trying to devise a cost-effective way to produce graphene at scale. Companies like Samsung use a method pioneered at the University of Texas, in which they heat copper foil to eighteen hundred degrees Fahrenheit in a low vacuum, and introduce methane gas, which causes graphene to "grow" as an atom-thick sheet on both sides of the copper—much as frost crystals "grow" on a windowpane. They then use acids to etch away the copper. The resulting graphene is invisible to the naked eye and too fragile to touch with anything but instruments designed for microelectronics. The process is slow, exacting, and too expensive for all but the largest companies to afford. ... Nearly every scientist I spoke with suggested that graphene lends itself especially well to hype."

35 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we weren't already doing so many things we were once told were impossible.

    1. Re:Now if only... by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll see your impossible things and raise you "Things that will change the world" but have never been heard from after the initial hype.

    2. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can name your fallacy - Straw Man.
      You've created an easily torn down argument that he never made.

      He did not say "Therefore it's actually possible" at all, he merely pointed out that in the past, things have been thought impossible, which have then proven to be possible.

      So if you're going to put words in his mouth, then it should be like this:

      "Oh they said x wasn't possible but now we can do it, therefore anytime someone says an "x" is impossible, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should give up"

    3. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reading comprehension, get some.

      He / She / It said:

      Now if only we weren't already doing so many things we were once told were impossible.

      What you think OP said, and that is wrong: "everything anyone said was impossible we are doing anyways."

      What OP really said, in a short and concise way that a normal thinking being can understand: "There are many things that seemed, and were deemed impossible at the time, that we can now do quite simply today due to unforeseen advances in technology."

      You might want to look up your qualifiers and brush up on them, you seem to be confusing "so many", meaning not all / there is a subset, with "everything".

  2. Mass production ? by SteveAstro · · Score: 5, Informative

    And yet, I read about a team in Cambridge in the UK who have a new low temperature process that can create graphene in industrial quantities.

    http://cambridgenanosystems.co...

    1. Re:Mass production ? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And yet, I read about a team in Cambridge in the UK who have a new low temperature process that can create graphene in industrial quantities.

      http://cambridgenanosystems.co...

      Do you expect the New Yorker to do actual research (or even a google search) before writing an article or something?

    2. Re:Mass production ? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And yet, I read about a team in Cambridge in the UK who have a new low temperature process that can create graphene in industrial quantities. http://cambridgenanosystems.co...

      Do you expect the New Yorker to do actual research (or even a google search) before writing an article or something?

      That was covered in the summary:
      "Nearly every scientist I spoke with suggested that graphene lends itself especially well to hype."

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:Mass production ? by SteveAstro · · Score: 2

      And from the tiny diamonds before we can now grow large gem quality ones. Same with Graphene, and a long way from the Samsung process.

    4. Re:Mass production ? by Headw1nd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read the article? In it they talk about a process to make graphene from anthracite coal with a 25% yield rate. The problem is not making graphene, any idiot with a pencil can do that, it's making large sheets of graphene. They go over this more than once. You really didn't read the article, did you?

    5. Re:Mass production ? by Headw1nd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article actually seemed well researched, and involved interviewing or questioning at least a dozen people in the field. I'm pretty sure they used google somewhere in the process. I realize it's hip to bash reported for lack of thoroughness, but your comment seems out of place, as the New Yorker is not usually one to skimp on research.

    6. Re:Mass production ? by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mass production- of graphene powder. Cambridge Nanosystems' process makes flakes of graphene in the 200-800 nm diameter range; cf. this interview with their chief scientist. It's still a valuable material with many potential uses; that interview talks about composite materials and conductive inks. However, it's a very different product with different applications from a large-scale monolayer sheet.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    7. Re:Mass production ? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      When you say pencil, I'm pretty sure you mean "graphite". A lovely and useful substance, to be sure, but not especially close to graphene.

      --
      That is all.
    8. Re:Mass production ? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Informative

      Somebody with a Nobel Prize would disagree with you.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    9. Re:Mass production ? by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      The New Yorker has very good factcheckers. Maybe they don't work on everything (they don't, articles that get them in trouble get priority) but their reputation on factchecking is excellent.

    10. Re:Mass production ? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm an idiot with a pencil and I don't even know where to start!

  3. Re:So No Space Elevator ??? by seededfury · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how about making it a few more atoms thick so it can be used as a condom?

  4. wimpy talk by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's just an engineering challenge. in the late 19th century, people would have scoffed at the idea of an electrical device with over 4 billion components in a few square centimeters that was mass produced.

    Or imagine the most esteemed scientist of that day being told that a 200 meter long submarine vessel with a crew of 150 could be made with a power plant that only needed refueling every fifteen years, and that it could go for months underwater without surfacing, with weapons sufficient to destroy dozens of large cities.

    1. Re: wimpy talk by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, nobody took that Jules Verne guy seriously.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:wimpy talk by MattskEE · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Graphene in addition to the engineering challenges does have some very fundamental scientific challenges as well.

      The most important challenge is its lack of a bandgap meaning that graphene transistors cannot be turned off. That drawback means that while it may have a ~500GHz cutoff frequency on par with silicon and below the InP records it will not modulate current in an energy-efficient way, and while it can create some forms of logic the lack of a bandgap limits its power amplifying frequency to a measly 50GHz, well below the competing technologies. Contrast that with Northrop Grumman's recent 1000GHz amplifier, which is admittedly not a great amplifier since it is run very near its cutoff frequency it has 1dB or less gain per stage, but it works which is still quite impressive.

      So far the various methods that can give graphene a bandgap also take away the extremely fast electron transport properties that made graphene so interesting for electronics in the first place. Some of us working on competing technologies wonder why hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on graphene transistor development without solving the fundamental bandgap problem - of course we just want that money directed to our own research, but some of us try to be realistic about the capabilities of what we are developing ;-)

      I'm sure graphene will be useful for some things but so far there are still some fundamental problems that need to be solved before using it for high-speed electronics for wireless applications or digital logic. We'll see how it does.

    3. Re: wimpy talk by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      No one ever claimed he invented or conceived of the submarine. Put your straw man back in your poop chute.

    4. Re: wimpy talk by vivian · · Score: 2

      Honestly, reading the synopsis of the plot of 20,000 Leagues, it seems he contributed more to Star Trek than he did to reality.

      I don't remember Captain Nemo ever losing his shirt and making out with every mermaid, daugters of Neptune or any other female denizens of the deep that get in range of his tentacles... I guess they got Kirk's predilections from elsewhere.

    5. Re:wimpy talk by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      I have shocking news for you from the 19th century, they inform me that the Great Eastern could only become a submarine vessel after sinking, what with it being a surface steam ship and all

  5. Stalwart Enemy of Hype by stephencrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, yes, the New Yorker - when i need someone to cut through the latest scientific controversies, there is no finer swordsman.

  6. James Tour made me a Comp Sci by kajong0007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a student at Rice, where James Tour teaches. First semester my freshman year, I made the mistake of trying to take Organic Chemistry with James Tour as my professor.

    That class proved to me that I was not, in fact, a chemical engineer.

    I switched to Computer Science the next year, but it always makes me laugh seeing Prof. Tour's name.

    1. Re:James Tour made me a Comp Sci by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That class proved to me that I was not, in fact, a chemical engineer.

      If so, taking it wasn't a mistake because it kept you from spending years learning something you weren't really cut out for. And, if you count in the tuition money you saved, it may have been the best thing you ever did while at Rice.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  7. Aluminium by valkraider · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "In the mid 1880s, aluminium metal was exceedingly difficult to produce, which made pure aluminium more valuable than gold.[51] So celebrated was the metal that bars of aluminium were exhibited at the Exposition Universelle of 1855.[52] Napoleon III of France is reputed to held a banquet where the most honored guests were given aluminium utensils, while the others made do with gold." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

    1. Re:Aluminium by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in the 50s we were going to be driving nuclear powered cars by now.

      And indeed, some of us are. If you drive an electric car and live near a nuclear power plant, you might be one of them.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Aluminium by visavillem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the elements heavier than Iron are created in the Type I supernova explosions, so it's a supernova powered car.

      --
      I'm not really here, it's just more probable that i'm here, than anywhere else.
  8. Maybe if they used graphene to make it... by osu-neko · · Score: 2

    ...I mean, it's the miracle substance you can do anything with, so maybe you can use it to make graphene! :D

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  9. Same old story by BobandMax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every time a new discovery is made, legions of naysayers appear to tell us how it will not make a difference or is impossible to implement or too expensive or, well, you fill in the blank. Never underestimate the ingenuity of people wanting fame, wealth, professional success, better mate selection or whatever. Graphene will be whatever it will be. It was only a relatively few years ago that these same people, or their ilk, thought they knew everything there was to know about the well-explored element, carbon. The future will reveal itself in due course and those who predict utopia or disaster are both likely to be wrong.

    --

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
    -- Pablo Picasso
  10. Re:So No Space Elevator ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't make condoms better.

    The first problem with condoms is they block the feeling of moisture. The second is they block the movement of the foreskin. Of course, for men who are circumcised and so who already lost most of their ability to feel what sex is (because of thicker and less sensitive skin as well as no foreskin movement), it doesn't matter much, but even then there's the third problem of the pause between foreplay and penetration which change sex from an act of pure passion to something, let's say, less spontaneous.

    All of those problems won't be solve with thinner condoms.

  11. Misleading title by pahles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the summary: "The process is slow, exacting, and too expensive" and "too fragile to touch". Yet the title says its fast, strong and cheap...

    --
    Sig?
  12. Little known fact. by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

    Elon Musk can convert coal into graphene by squeezing it with his buttcheeks.
    But he won't, because he's too busy to run another company right now.

  13. Re:So No Space Elevator ??? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A graphene condom for me would be the same as a space elevator.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust