5 ms·

I swear I've heard about this before... is this one of those stories that emerges about a technology that never seems to enter the market? That "super slick" co

by M_Grey 10y ago

I swear I've heard about this before... is this one of those stories that emerges about a technology that never seems to enter the market? That "super slick" coating for condiment container interiors is another that springs to mind.

beatpanda 10y ago
Yes, it is. My understanding is that there are still barriers to producing enough graphene at a large enough scale to make many of its uses commercially viable. http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3677 http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3677
- MetallicCloud 10y ago
  This is mentioned at the start of the article. They are using graphene oxide which is much easier to create at scale.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Production appears to be what they are improving here: > But it has been difficult to produce large quantities of single-layer graphene using existing methods, such as chemical vapour deposition (CVD). Current production routes are also quite costly. > On the other hand, said Dr Nair, "graphene oxide can be produced by simple oxidation in the lab". > "In terms of scalability and the cost of the material, graphene oxide has a potential advantage over single-layered graphene."
Keyframe 10y ago
Graphene was re-discovered only in 2004. It takes time.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  From the discovery of new basic science to commercialization usually takes 30 - 40 years. We're not even halfway there yet. E.g. look at how long it took to develop digital cameras, flat screen TVs, etc.
  - drak0n1c 10y ago
    That speed should be much faster now due to the information age and globalized competition. It may not approach Ray Kurzweil's predictions, but it's certainly shorter than previous generations of commercialization.
  - m0zzie 10y ago
    Is that really still true in the world we live in today though? Previously we were unable to instantly share information so freely and collaborate with people around the world with so little effort. I'm not saying it shouldn't take time to develop these things, but surely the 30-40 year timeline is significantly reduced due to information sharing today?
    - Keyframe 10y ago
      I'm sure it's faster now due to reasons you're describing. Also, cold war is gone - so that kind of helps too. Thing is, this isn't your average ruby on rails app and JSON API. Applied research in chemistry, physics, and industrial scale production takes certain breakthroughs, test methodologies, etc. all of which take a lot of talent and money. From what I remember we've seen significant (for certain amounts of significant) funding in applied r&d for graphene around the same time Nobel was won for it in 2010. So, even if r&d is accelerated now significantly, we're still probably at least around 10-20 years away from seeing anything utilising it in a significant and widespread manner.
    - Jach 10y ago
      I'd question the 30-40 years figure. I suspect "it depends". Check out the book "Skunk Works" sometime and marvel at what they managed to do on the frontiers with such small numbers of people and crappy computers (with relatively small budgets and tight deadlines to boot). Peter Thiel riffs on this idea a lot. Despite our incredible advances in computing and networks, it seems like progress in everything else has slowed down. (Randomly found video with his basic stack of points: http://bigthink.com/embeds/video_idea/48434?width=512&height=288&auto_play=0 http://bigthink.com/embeds/video_idea/48434?width=512&height...) Another example, consider how long it takes to build any skyscraper in the US. This isn't even new tech, it's well understood, but it still takes a long time from planning to legal stuff to the actual construction. And yet there's a guy in China who builds other kinds of skyscrapers at a rate of two floors per day. Slowness is not a fundamental thing.
jessriedel 10y ago
Desalinization is already with about a factor of 2 or 3 of the thermodynamic optimum, so improvements can't be revolutionary. Desalinization mostly needs cheap clean energy.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Also, waste is a major problem, environmentally.
  - Baeocystin 10y ago
    What is the best practice for dealing with the brine? Reinjection in to a current? Diffusion over a long pipe? Evaporation in on-shore ponds?
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Are you talking about the brine? This is trivial if you just put a pipe a few hundred yards out to sea. The concentration is diluted extremely quickly. (The only exception is if your desalination plant is below sea level because then you have to pump the brine up hill, which costs some energy.)
    - throwaway91111 10y ago
      I mean, I sure hope so.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      I've seen the assumption that the brine dissipates quickly challenged. Fluids can remain subbornly un-mixed, over large distances and for long times. Given that brine is heavier than seawater, it will almost certainly tend to sink and flow along bathymetric contours, perhaps pooling in local low spots. And sealife can be exceedingly sensitive to changes in temperature, ion density, salt content, etc. This reminds me of a book in which an ecologist described a discussion with a chemist over the concentration of some pollutant in seawater. Roughly, "Assuming a well-mixed solution..." starts the chemist. "How are you planning to stir the oceans?" asks the ecologist....
dghughes 10y ago
I wasn't aware there was a condiment interior sticking problem. Weird. If this is made the makers better warn first or that ketchup is going to fly out like a rocket.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing although I've been unable to locate the paper that I recall reading about it. There are lots of papers which discuss nano-pores in graphene as membrane but I recall something that required a current in the graphene.
Animats 10y ago
You can buy that as Rust-Oleum® NeverWet®. It works great at first, but it wears out fast. It works by creating a surface with tiny spikes. Water has so much surface tension that it rolls across the spikes, rather than breaking up and getting down to the base layer. So the contact area is tiny and the adhesion is low. The surface is fragile, because it's composed of tiny spikes. Rubbing will destroy it. It's hard to fix this, because the property that makes it useful is the same as the one that makes it fragile.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Just a perfect explanation, thank you. There always seem to be those catch-22's in these techs; I just wish the articles didn't come out in this predictable pattern of pulses.

by M_Grey 10y ago

beatpanda 10y ago

Yes, it is. My understanding is that there are still barriers to producing enough graphene at a large enough scale to make many of its uses commercially viable. http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3677 http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3677

MetallicCloud 10y ago
This is mentioned at the start of the article. They are using graphene oxide which is much easier to create at scale.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
Production appears to be what they are improving here: > But it has been difficult to produce large quantities of single-layer graphene using existing methods, such as chemical vapour deposition (CVD). Current production routes are also quite costly. > On the other hand, said Dr Nair, "graphene oxide can be produced by simple oxidation in the lab". > "In terms of scalability and the cost of the material, graphene oxide has a potential advantage over single-layered graphene."

Keyframe 10y ago

Graphene was re-discovered only in 2004. It takes time.

Alex3917 10y ago
From the discovery of new basic science to commercialization usually takes 30 - 40 years. We're not even halfway there yet. E.g. look at how long it took to develop digital cameras, flat screen TVs, etc.
- drak0n1c 10y ago
  That speed should be much faster now due to the information age and globalized competition. It may not approach Ray Kurzweil's predictions, but it's certainly shorter than previous generations of commercialization.
- m0zzie 10y ago
  Is that really still true in the world we live in today though? Previously we were unable to instantly share information so freely and collaborate with people around the world with so little effort. I'm not saying it shouldn't take time to develop these things, but surely the 30-40 year timeline is significantly reduced due to information sharing today?
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    I'm sure it's faster now due to reasons you're describing. Also, cold war is gone - so that kind of helps too. Thing is, this isn't your average ruby on rails app and JSON API. Applied research in chemistry, physics, and industrial scale production takes certain breakthroughs, test methodologies, etc. all of which take a lot of talent and money. From what I remember we've seen significant (for certain amounts of significant) funding in applied r&d for graphene around the same time Nobel was won for it in 2010. So, even if r&d is accelerated now significantly, we're still probably at least around 10-20 years away from seeing anything utilising it in a significant and widespread manner.
  - Jach 10y ago
    I'd question the 30-40 years figure. I suspect "it depends". Check out the book "Skunk Works" sometime and marvel at what they managed to do on the frontiers with such small numbers of people and crappy computers (with relatively small budgets and tight deadlines to boot). Peter Thiel riffs on this idea a lot. Despite our incredible advances in computing and networks, it seems like progress in everything else has slowed down. (Randomly found video with his basic stack of points: http://bigthink.com/embeds/video_idea/48434?width=512&height=288&auto_play=0 http://bigthink.com/embeds/video_idea/48434?width=512&height...) Another example, consider how long it takes to build any skyscraper in the US. This isn't even new tech, it's well understood, but it still takes a long time from planning to legal stuff to the actual construction. And yet there's a guy in China who builds other kinds of skyscrapers at a rate of two floors per day. Slowness is not a fundamental thing.

jessriedel 10y ago

Desalinization is already with about a factor of 2 or 3 of the thermodynamic optimum, so improvements can't be revolutionary. Desalinization mostly needs cheap clean energy.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Also, waste is a major problem, environmentally.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  What is the best practice for dealing with the brine? Reinjection in to a current? Diffusion over a long pipe? Evaporation in on-shore ponds?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Are you talking about the brine? This is trivial if you just put a pipe a few hundred yards out to sea. The concentration is diluted extremely quickly. (The only exception is if your desalination plant is below sea level because then you have to pump the brine up hill, which costs some energy.)
  - throwaway91111 10y ago
    I mean, I sure hope so.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I've seen the assumption that the brine dissipates quickly challenged. Fluids can remain subbornly un-mixed, over large distances and for long times. Given that brine is heavier than seawater, it will almost certainly tend to sink and flow along bathymetric contours, perhaps pooling in local low spots. And sealife can be exceedingly sensitive to changes in temperature, ion density, salt content, etc. This reminds me of a book in which an ecologist described a discussion with a chemist over the concentration of some pollutant in seawater. Roughly, "Assuming a well-mixed solution..." starts the chemist. "How are you planning to stir the oceans?" asks the ecologist....

dghughes 10y ago

I wasn't aware there was a condiment interior sticking problem. Weird. If this is made the makers better warn first or that ketchup is going to fly out like a rocket.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I was thinking the same thing although I've been unable to locate the paper that I recall reading about it. There are lots of papers which discuss nano-pores in graphene as membrane but I recall something that required a current in the graphene.

Animats 10y ago

You can buy that as Rust-Oleum® NeverWet®. It works great at first, but it wears out fast. It works by creating a surface with tiny spikes. Water has so much surface tension that it rolls across the spikes, rather than breaking up and getting down to the base layer. So the contact area is tiny and the adhesion is low. The surface is fragile, because it's composed of tiny spikes. Rubbing will destroy it. It's hard to fix this, because the property that makes it useful is the same as the one that makes it fragile.

M_Grey 10y ago
Just a perfect explanation, thank you. There always seem to be those catch-22's in these techs; I just wish the articles didn't come out in this predictable pattern of pulses.