6 ms·

Is graphene a miracle material?

115 points by fun2have 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
schmittz 15y ago
It's weird that this article mentions the problem of graphene lacking a semiconducting form and then fails to mention carbon nanotubes at all. I don't do research in this area, so I'm unaware, but it seems that much more work is currently being done with CNTs than graphene.
CoffeeDregs 15y ago
Graphene and, more generally, carbon nanotubes are exciting because they have something-for-everyone. Silicon, plastics, water are examples of molecules or structures that have also been spun into important applications for just about every vertical. I suspect we'll seem carbon nanotube products explode over the next 20 years just as plastics did over the last 40. The article focuses a bit on whether graphene can replace silicon, which I think kind of misses the point. The material will enable exciting new applications rather than merely transforming existing ones. I'm also kinda bummed that this kind of research doesn't have a higher profile in the US. This is high-ass-tech and is probably an area in which our oil companies could play a very large role with their competencies at running large, highly complex, raw material production systems.
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  Reading this article brought to mind this scene in The Graduate: Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics. Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean? So, I'm wondering how and where I should be investing to take advantage of this materials revolution. Seems like a pretty obvious bet to make, but it seems to be spread across many companies and with an indeterminate schedule (some say 5 years, some say 10, some say "we don't know"). And, more importantly, so many of the companies involved are too big for one product or even one line of products to make a huge dent in their bottom line. I've invested in IBM and Intel in the past based on research in the pipeline, and while the products did come to fruition and did prove to be good for the companies bottom line, the stock market didn't respond as much as one would hope (but probably about what I should have expected, had I really done the analysis of how it would effect their bottom line). I'm not sure I follow you on the oil companies, though. Sure, they've been a major player in the plastics pipeline forever, but, if graphene isn't made from petroleum derivatives, I'm not sure it is a natural fit for oil companies. I would say the folks building LCD panels and other silicon-based products are the obvious candidates for some graphene products (and Samsung seems to be near the front of the pack in products based on graphene)...but maybe it'll be some other segment altogether (solar panel makers like Sharp and Kyocera, perhaps?). Whatever happens, I want in, at least as an investor. So, I guess next time I review my portfolio (which currently contains GOOG and nothing else) I'm gonna do some more research on graphene. It's probably not a big rush to find the right companies...since it'll be a very long bet, anyway.
  - CoffeeDregs 15y ago
    Actually, The Graduate was exactly what I was thinking as I was typing my comment. ;) Edit: didn't reply to the bigger point about oil companies. I kinda threw that out there as a quick thought and agree with you that the semiconductor, semi-co materials, or LCD guys might be better positioned. That said, few companies are as good at gathering, refining, processing and shipping gigatons of carbon as the oil companies.
    - jerf 15y ago
      "That said, few companies are as good at gathering, refining, processing and shipping gigatons of carbon" That's abstracting too far. The food industry ships around gigatons of carbon too, which is just as "graphenic" as oil, namely, zero. Pencil manufacturers actually use graphene, but it seems unlikely they're going to lead this drive either.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - nazar 15y ago
        I thought pencil manufacturers actually use graphite. From the article I understand that graphene pencil is only useful to write on steel sheets.
        jerf 15y ago
        I had been led to believe by previous articles such as [1] that graphite contains graphene, albeit in small quantities and not in a useful state. The process of trying to produce a link to substantiate this has left me less sure whether it "contains" graphene, or if it merely can produce it under the circumstances described in the article. Given what it is and how much carbon gets around on this planet, it is perhaps hard to say what "contains" graphene in the first place, in much the same way I'm often a bit annoyed when someone counts every oxygen and two hydrogens anywhere in a compound as "water", regardless of how tied up they are. [1]: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_702926.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_702926...
- physcab 15y ago
  > I'm also kinda bummed that this kind of research doesn't have a higher profile in the US. Graphene gets a ton of attention, do not worry. It is one of the most competitive areas of materials science research. When my former gradschool groupmate did his proposal on it and all the experiments he wished to do for his PhD thesis (keep in mind he spent a year putting this proposal together) most of the experiments had already been done by the time his proposal was actually accepted. When I left the program, there was literally a "groundbreaking" paper per a week coming out in Science or Nature, and all the other publications were being flooded.
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  We have more important high-tech ventures to fund over here, such as location-based social photo sharing services. In all seriousness, though, I think we're at a point with graphene comparable to the earliest days of the integrated circuit. We can imagine faster and smaller adding machines, but we can't quite yet imagine an IBM PC running VisiCalc. And the iPhone isn't even science fiction yet.
FrojoS 15y ago
There is currently a 1 billion Euro proposal for a grant on graphene research in the EU. [1] But the decision will not be made before the end of 2012. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/news.2011.143.html http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/news.2011.143.ht... edit: Sorry, not to much new information here. They also mention it in the original submission.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
CognitiveLens 15y ago
If IBM can make a 150 GHz graphene transistor, why does Dr Phaedon Avouris, of IBM, say that it cannot replace silicon? Isn't clock frequency a measure of the transistor's ability to turn on and off quickly?
- perlgeek 15y ago
  It's not only important what it can do, but also if you can produce it in the way you want. Only time will show if dense packed transistors on a chip can be build cheap and reliably.
- ori_b 15y ago
  There's so much more than clock frequency. The place silicon shines isn't so much it's material properties for producing individual switches - they're good, but there's better out there. It's the raw manufacturability that silicon has. It's by far the easiest material to work with. It's abundant, cheap, and easy to obtain. It's got properties that lend it to easy junction doping and easy annealing. It's easy to deposit new layers on top of etched silicon. It's got a lattice that matches up nicely with the materials you'd want to use for contacts. In short, the advantages of silicon aren't in it's ability to make transistors. It's in it's ability to make transistors while on a high volume assembly line. It's going to be a while if we see whether graphene can match silicon for that.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Yup. It's always sobering to remember that there's already plenty of higher-performance materials than silicon- but silicon is so much cheaper to use, it simply outperforms everything else in performance-per-dollar by an incredible margin.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    How much of the ease of using silicon is due to its inherent properties, and how much is due to the many billions that have been sunk into R&D?
    - 15y ago
FleursDuMal 15y ago
I have an encyclopedia from the 1950's at home with a page entitled "Asbestos - the new wonder material".
- mkramlich 15y ago
  I was thinking similarly. Based on past history, I expect them to rush to find all sorts of short-term profitable applications for it, build new products around it, and not really look at things like negative health or environmental consequences. There just isn't as much money to be made by finding reasons not to use it as there is in finding reasons to use it.
  - rcxdude 15y ago
    well, it is basically graphite, just with more consistent microstructure. I'm having a hard time thinking of ways in which it could be worse than graphite in terms of health or environmental concerns.
    - mkramlich 15y ago
      I could probably cite some examples of molecules where with a certain molecular structure/combination it's harmless, then you add just one more Hydrogen or Nitrogen, or whatever, and it becomes an acid. Also consider water aka H2O. Have a sip of it and your mouth feels better. Have several cups and you're refreshed and body replenished for the day. Have 50 gallons go down your pipes and you are dead. Same molecule, phase, and microstructure. But water is extremely old and long studied and literally falling out of the sky for millions of years while humans on the planet. Not so, graphene. Believe me, I think it's cool and sexy and do hope it enables all kinds of breakthroughs, I do. I'm just skeptical about whether it won't unleash horrible health problems down the road, due to incompetent and/or corrupt testing/approval bureaucracy, especially in the USA.
    - dfox 15y ago
      Although it is not exactly proven, one can assume that asbestos' toxicity is related not to it's chemical properties but to physical geometry of particles of asbestos dust which seem similar to dust that you would get from carbon nanotubes. On the other hand, there is quite significant question whether this actually is problem (even in asbestos case) given right uses and technologies.
Sapient 15y ago
Optical computers, genetic catalogs, nanorepair modules--forget all of that. It's when you see a megaton of steel suspended over your head by a thread the thickness of a human hair that you really find God in technology. * Anonymous Metagenics Dockworker - MorganLink 3DVision Live Interview
- MrJagil 15y ago
  I hate to be that guy but: "megaton |ˈmegəˌtən| noun a unit of explosive power chiefly used for nuclear weapons, equivalent to one million tons of TNT"
  - Bud 15y ago
    You're being that guy. Plus, you're wrong. Mega- is a standard SI prefix, and the use of "megaton" to denote one million tons is entirely correct. Yes, it's also true that "megaton" has a second meaning. This fact does not invalidate its other meaning. In fact, if you bother looking this up in actual dictionaries, you'll find that the normal mass definition is often listed first, and the explosive definition is listed second, for what it's worth.
    - MrJagil 15y ago
      Wow, sorry man. Didn't mean to waste your time/bother you. I just looked it up in the dictionary I had handy, as the wording seemed strange to me. In any case, I am glad I learned something new today!
      - mattmanser 15y ago
        It's also a quote from the computer game Alpha Centauri.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      Wouldn't it be correctly called a "megatonne", as SI prefixes aren't typically applied to imperial units?
SeoxyS 15y ago
I want clothing embedded with sheets of Graphene. Imagine the protection! I ride a motorcycle, which is one of the most dangerous daily activities one can do, and something that exhibits these properties could save me a lot of pain in wearing armored gear etc. There are also a range of applications in the military and security industries.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Graphene wouldn't provide any shock absorption. For that, try looking at something like d3o: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU
  - SeoxyS 15y ago
    OMG, how did I not know about this! D3o might be the coolest thing I've learnt about today, I totally want d3o riding gear now.
- icegreentea 15y ago
  Isn't most of motorcycle safety designed to a) make sure no part of you catches the ground and b) spread out the energy as much as possible (spatially and temporally)? Cause I don't think just sheets of graphene would be very good at dealing with energy dissipation. You might not be able to break the graphene sheets, but the energy would just transfer through to your body.
  - SeoxyS 15y ago
    If the sheet of graphene can't be pierced, it would protect from the most common mild injury in motorcycle accidents: road rash. (Right?) It'd prevent direct contact with the road, it'd prevent your clothing being ripped off and your skin being turned into ground meat. Not that I really know what I'm talking about, but that was my line of thinking…
    - hugh3 15y ago
      A sheet of graphene is one atomic layer thick. It's very easy to tear apart or pierce with any macroscopic object.
cagenut 15y ago
Coincidentally, news out today of some impressive research results on using graphene in li-ion batteries: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/chang-20110521.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/chang-20110521.html

115 points by fun2have 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

It's weird that this article mentions the problem of graphene lacking a semiconducting form and then fails to mention carbon nanotubes at all. I don't do research in this area, so I'm unaware, but it seems that much more work is currently being done with CNTs than graphene.

CoffeeDregs 15y ago

Graphene and, more generally, carbon nanotubes are exciting because they have something-for-everyone. Silicon, plastics, water are examples of molecules or structures that have also been spun into important applications for just about every vertical. I suspect we'll seem carbon nanotube products explode over the next 20 years just as plastics did over the last 40. The article focuses a bit on whether graphene can replace silicon, which I think kind of misses the point. The material will enable exciting new applications rather than merely transforming existing ones. I'm also kinda bummed that this kind of research doesn't have a higher profile in the US. This is high-ass-tech and is probably an area in which our oil companies could play a very large role with their competencies at running large, highly complex, raw material production systems.

SwellJoe 15y ago
Reading this article brought to mind this scene in The Graduate: Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics. Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean? So, I'm wondering how and where I should be investing to take advantage of this materials revolution. Seems like a pretty obvious bet to make, but it seems to be spread across many companies and with an indeterminate schedule (some say 5 years, some say 10, some say "we don't know"). And, more importantly, so many of the companies involved are too big for one product or even one line of products to make a huge dent in their bottom line. I've invested in IBM and Intel in the past based on research in the pipeline, and while the products did come to fruition and did prove to be good for the companies bottom line, the stock market didn't respond as much as one would hope (but probably about what I should have expected, had I really done the analysis of how it would effect their bottom line). I'm not sure I follow you on the oil companies, though. Sure, they've been a major player in the plastics pipeline forever, but, if graphene isn't made from petroleum derivatives, I'm not sure it is a natural fit for oil companies. I would say the folks building LCD panels and other silicon-based products are the obvious candidates for some graphene products (and Samsung seems to be near the front of the pack in products based on graphene)...but maybe it'll be some other segment altogether (solar panel makers like Sharp and Kyocera, perhaps?). Whatever happens, I want in, at least as an investor. So, I guess next time I review my portfolio (which currently contains GOOG and nothing else) I'm gonna do some more research on graphene. It's probably not a big rush to find the right companies...since it'll be a very long bet, anyway.
- CoffeeDregs 15y ago
  Actually, The Graduate was exactly what I was thinking as I was typing my comment. ;) Edit: didn't reply to the bigger point about oil companies. I kinda threw that out there as a quick thought and agree with you that the semiconductor, semi-co materials, or LCD guys might be better positioned. That said, few companies are as good at gathering, refining, processing and shipping gigatons of carbon as the oil companies.
  - jerf 15y ago
    "That said, few companies are as good at gathering, refining, processing and shipping gigatons of carbon" That's abstracting too far. The food industry ships around gigatons of carbon too, which is just as "graphenic" as oil, namely, zero. Pencil manufacturers actually use graphene, but it seems unlikely they're going to lead this drive either.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - nazar 15y ago
      I thought pencil manufacturers actually use graphite. From the article I understand that graphene pencil is only useful to write on steel sheets.
      - jerf 15y ago
        I had been led to believe by previous articles such as [1] that graphite contains graphene, albeit in small quantities and not in a useful state. The process of trying to produce a link to substantiate this has left me less sure whether it "contains" graphene, or if it merely can produce it under the circumstances described in the article. Given what it is and how much carbon gets around on this planet, it is perhaps hard to say what "contains" graphene in the first place, in much the same way I'm often a bit annoyed when someone counts every oxygen and two hydrogens anywhere in a compound as "water", regardless of how tied up they are. [1]: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_702926.html http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_702926...
physcab 15y ago
> I'm also kinda bummed that this kind of research doesn't have a higher profile in the US. Graphene gets a ton of attention, do not worry. It is one of the most competitive areas of materials science research. When my former gradschool groupmate did his proposal on it and all the experiments he wished to do for his PhD thesis (keep in mind he spent a year putting this proposal together) most of the experiments had already been done by the time his proposal was actually accepted. When I left the program, there was literally a "groundbreaking" paper per a week coming out in Science or Nature, and all the other publications were being flooded.
mortenjorck 15y ago
We have more important high-tech ventures to fund over here, such as location-based social photo sharing services. In all seriousness, though, I think we're at a point with graphene comparable to the earliest days of the integrated circuit. We can imagine faster and smaller adding machines, but we can't quite yet imagine an IBM PC running VisiCalc. And the iPhone isn't even science fiction yet.

FrojoS 15y ago

There is currently a 1 billion Euro proposal for a grant on graphene research in the EU. [1] But the decision will not be made before the end of 2012. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/news.2011.143.html http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110308/full/news.2011.143.ht... edit: Sorry, not to much new information here. They also mention it in the original submission.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

CognitiveLens 15y ago

If IBM can make a 150 GHz graphene transistor, why does Dr Phaedon Avouris, of IBM, say that it cannot replace silicon? Isn't clock frequency a measure of the transistor's ability to turn on and off quickly?

perlgeek 15y ago
It's not only important what it can do, but also if you can produce it in the way you want. Only time will show if dense packed transistors on a chip can be build cheap and reliably.
ori_b 15y ago
There's so much more than clock frequency. The place silicon shines isn't so much it's material properties for producing individual switches - they're good, but there's better out there. It's the raw manufacturability that silicon has. It's by far the easiest material to work with. It's abundant, cheap, and easy to obtain. It's got properties that lend it to easy junction doping and easy annealing. It's easy to deposit new layers on top of etched silicon. It's got a lattice that matches up nicely with the materials you'd want to use for contacts. In short, the advantages of silicon aren't in it's ability to make transistors. It's in it's ability to make transistors while on a high volume assembly line. It's going to be a while if we see whether graphene can match silicon for that.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Yup. It's always sobering to remember that there's already plenty of higher-performance materials than silicon- but silicon is so much cheaper to use, it simply outperforms everything else in performance-per-dollar by an incredible margin.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  How much of the ease of using silicon is due to its inherent properties, and how much is due to the many billions that have been sunk into R&D?
  - 15y ago

FleursDuMal 15y ago

I have an encyclopedia from the 1950's at home with a page entitled "Asbestos - the new wonder material".

mkramlich 15y ago
I was thinking similarly. Based on past history, I expect them to rush to find all sorts of short-term profitable applications for it, build new products around it, and not really look at things like negative health or environmental consequences. There just isn't as much money to be made by finding reasons not to use it as there is in finding reasons to use it.
- rcxdude 15y ago
  well, it is basically graphite, just with more consistent microstructure. I'm having a hard time thinking of ways in which it could be worse than graphite in terms of health or environmental concerns.
  - mkramlich 15y ago
    I could probably cite some examples of molecules where with a certain molecular structure/combination it's harmless, then you add just one more Hydrogen or Nitrogen, or whatever, and it becomes an acid. Also consider water aka H2O. Have a sip of it and your mouth feels better. Have several cups and you're refreshed and body replenished for the day. Have 50 gallons go down your pipes and you are dead. Same molecule, phase, and microstructure. But water is extremely old and long studied and literally falling out of the sky for millions of years while humans on the planet. Not so, graphene. Believe me, I think it's cool and sexy and do hope it enables all kinds of breakthroughs, I do. I'm just skeptical about whether it won't unleash horrible health problems down the road, due to incompetent and/or corrupt testing/approval bureaucracy, especially in the USA.
  - dfox 15y ago
    Although it is not exactly proven, one can assume that asbestos' toxicity is related not to it's chemical properties but to physical geometry of particles of asbestos dust which seem similar to dust that you would get from carbon nanotubes. On the other hand, there is quite significant question whether this actually is problem (even in asbestos case) given right uses and technologies.

Sapient 15y ago

Optical computers, genetic catalogs, nanorepair modules--forget all of that. It's when you see a megaton of steel suspended over your head by a thread the thickness of a human hair that you really find God in technology. * Anonymous Metagenics Dockworker - MorganLink 3DVision Live Interview

MrJagil 15y ago
I hate to be that guy but: "megaton |ˈmegəˌtən| noun a unit of explosive power chiefly used for nuclear weapons, equivalent to one million tons of TNT"
- Bud 15y ago
  You're being that guy. Plus, you're wrong. Mega- is a standard SI prefix, and the use of "megaton" to denote one million tons is entirely correct. Yes, it's also true that "megaton" has a second meaning. This fact does not invalidate its other meaning. In fact, if you bother looking this up in actual dictionaries, you'll find that the normal mass definition is often listed first, and the explosive definition is listed second, for what it's worth.
  - MrJagil 15y ago
    Wow, sorry man. Didn't mean to waste your time/bother you. I just looked it up in the dictionary I had handy, as the wording seemed strange to me. In any case, I am glad I learned something new today!
    - mattmanser 15y ago
      It's also a quote from the computer game Alpha Centauri.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Wouldn't it be correctly called a "megatonne", as SI prefixes aren't typically applied to imperial units?

SeoxyS 15y ago

I want clothing embedded with sheets of Graphene. Imagine the protection! I ride a motorcycle, which is one of the most dangerous daily activities one can do, and something that exhibits these properties could save me a lot of pain in wearing armored gear etc. There are also a range of applications in the military and security industries.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Graphene wouldn't provide any shock absorption. For that, try looking at something like d3o: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDeJ7rLUYU
- SeoxyS 15y ago
  OMG, how did I not know about this! D3o might be the coolest thing I've learnt about today, I totally want d3o riding gear now.
icegreentea 15y ago
Isn't most of motorcycle safety designed to a) make sure no part of you catches the ground and b) spread out the energy as much as possible (spatially and temporally)? Cause I don't think just sheets of graphene would be very good at dealing with energy dissipation. You might not be able to break the graphene sheets, but the energy would just transfer through to your body.
- SeoxyS 15y ago
  If the sheet of graphene can't be pierced, it would protect from the most common mild injury in motorcycle accidents: road rash. (Right?) It'd prevent direct contact with the road, it'd prevent your clothing being ripped off and your skin being turned into ground meat. Not that I really know what I'm talking about, but that was my line of thinking…
  - hugh3 15y ago
    A sheet of graphene is one atomic layer thick. It's very easy to tear apart or pierce with any macroscopic object.

cagenut 15y ago

Coincidentally, news out today of some impressive research results on using graphene in li-ion batteries: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/chang-20110521.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/chang-20110521.html