6 ms·

This sort of cynicism really grinds my gears. Graphene was first isolated and charaterized in 2004, using Scotch tape to pull samples off bulk graphite. If you

This sort of cynicism really grinds my gears. Graphene was first isolated and charaterized in 2004, using Scotch tape to pull samples off bulk graphite. If you were surprised in 2011 that graphene was not already a household staple, that's 100% on you. It takes time to figure out applications, it takes time to mature them, and it takes time to figure out affordable, high quality, bulk production methods, and if the latter was easy it wouldn't be a material we first characterized in 2004.

znpy 5y ago
I really appreciated your composure in not calling GP an idiot. I'm not sure I would have managed to be been so kind.
PudgePacket 5y ago
Can you blame people for getting fatigued from this kind of news? (Also it's been 16 years ;) ) Every 6 months there is a new use of graphene that promises 10x something, new cancer treatment that is revolutionary, new AI that can solve the worlds hardest problems ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
- ProblemFactory 5y ago
  It's understandable. Science journalism exaggerates results, even if the original researchers and their paper did not. And even the most promising scientific results can take decades to be applied in the industry and become available to consumers. But at the same time, this is Hacker News, not Mature Consumer Product News. Here is the best place to discuss what tech in 2030 might look like, not what we can buy today.
  - lumberingjack 5y ago
    That's because journalists have zero morals now and nobody holds them accountable most of the graphene stories I read are complete bullshit
    - Tarsul 5y ago
      this might be true for certain graphene stories (or paid advertisements where it's covered up who paid for those) but please don't say that "journalists" (meaning the whole group of journalists) have "zero morals". Because (real) journalists at least report more or less about the information that they receive and (yes) interpret it, that's better than zero morals (how much can be argued). Zero morals are what you find with certain politicians (or social media users or paid-for-studies-by-cartels) that pull their stories out of their behinds with no accountability whatsoever. Journalists still have a certain higher standard. And we shouldn't neglect this or say otherwise because this would lead to further erosion of trust in media. People should trust news sources more than social media posts because real news sources are still (!) more trustworthy than social media posts. Critical reading and thinking for thyself should be on the agenda everywhere, though.
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      well, its easy to fall into the trap of "get more clicks"... and its not just "science journals" that suffer from that
- vikramkr 5y ago
  Sure but the revolutionary cancer treatments and biotech stuff made it to market and now we have a new generation of cell and gene therapies that are incredibly effective send powerful used in patients. And mrna technology deployed to hundreds of millions of people to end a global pandemic. Biotech has been moving so fast since the human genome project that it makes no sense to call it a boy who cried wolf situation. Also google assistant is pretty nuts if you step back and think a out it. Ai has been doing pretty alright as well. IDK what exactly your expectations are for revolutionary treatments and powerful AIs but what we have already is pretty insane.
  - rgbrenner 5y ago
    All of those things have been in development longer than graphene. mRNA was discovered in the 1950s.
    - vikramkr 5y ago
      My comment wasn't about the timeline, it was about how those did truly materialize and aren't crying wolf situations
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Graphene isn't a Moller Skycar though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
  - DennisP 5y ago
    When I was about twelve years old I clipped a newspaper article about Moller and the flying saucer he had at the time. I'm in my mid-50s now. My consolation is that there are lots of other flying car projects now. Moller might be bad at taking stuff to production but also he was probably too early.
willis936 5y ago
REBCO was discovered in the 80s and we're only now rolling tapes into production. HTS are a game changer for what humans can do and yet it still took 40 years from discovery to first industrial use.
- sagarm 5y ago
  REBCO = rare earth barium copper oxide HTS = high temperature superconductor Apparently we can now make tapes of REBCO, which is a high temperature superconductor. The primary intended application is fusion research? Why wouldn't this be broadly useful?
  - willis936 5y ago
    Most industries consider LTS fields good enough for their application and don't consider the investment into HTS worthwhile. If an MRI works at 6 T then why would they want to spend 2-3x as much for a 20 T field? You might get a better product but you'll price yourself out of the market. Similar logic for NMR, gyrotrons, etc. Every application that I can think of that uses LTS would benefit from HTS. Hopefully as supply chains are established and economies of scale kick in for HTS the price will go down.
marcosscriven 5y ago
I think being cynical about the hype is a different thing to being cynical about the potential.
Zenst 5y ago
I disagree that it's 100% on the poster, because: I believe the poster is jesting at the whole marking of it and let's be fair, it has been marketed as the next big thing and how it will solve so many things very soon; Many new science articles of how they did this and that and yet nothing. Now, whilst I can appreciate that from lab to industrial production is a very long bumpy process and can often be longer than it took to do the many year lab work. That whole aspect is almost always overlooked in the marketing (news release) rewrites that filter down into Joe public news feeds. That I appreciate and get. So for me the real issue is not cynicism slants, it's the way news media takes such science and run with it to the stage that they build such expectations. Though we have been here before - remember flying cars and the public mindset in the 60's-80's era or indeed robots circa the World fair and how they would be in everybody's homes. Oh and I'm extremely mindful that to do some science you need funding and with that, you often have to up-sell what your doing to be able to do that science in the first place. Which is why I don't default view such cynicism as 100% down to the individual, when they are a product of so many links in the news/science chain and I'm just aware of that whole news production line from scientists after some money to do some science, to those that fund it wanting a ROI on their investment, down to institutions making carefully worded news release statements that will not say how or when, just push you into how this `could` or `will`(without specifying a year) do X,Y or Z better; And on paper they are right. But then the whole reality from lab to your home is a very long bumpy road and not everything is cost effective or that clear cut. Which explains your flying cars phase and kitchen robots phase of decades past.
gjvc 5y ago
You are criticising someone for having an opinion. 15 years is sufficient time to get _something_ to a prototype that has investors clamouring, if not the first production runs. By comparison, William Shockley filed his patent in June 1948, and Texas Instruments started making transistors for portable radios in 1954. Different technologies move at different rates. Perhaps graphene needs the modern-day equivalent of a Fairchild Semiconductor. Also, the difficulty of "figuring out affordable, high quality, bulk production methods" of a technology has little to do with the serendipity of its discovery.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  The first patent on a transistor was assigned in 1933 to a man named Julius Lilienfeld, who invented (conceptualized) the MESFET. He didn't get the same press coverage as Shockley, and also failed to commercialize. Shockley's 1948 patent was relatively late. Perhaps we just haven't had a "Shockley moment" in graphene yet. It would be nice if these other people stopped getting so much press, though.
  - rexreed 5y ago
    The fundamental difference between Lilienfeld and Shockley is that Lilienfeld didn't or wasn't able to even build a prototype. [0] "Sadly, Lilienfeld does not appear to have ever built a working prototype of his device; indeed, there’s no evidence that he ever even tried. He also never published any of his work other than as patent applications, so the world would remain ignorant of his insights for another two decades, when Bell Labs started working on what would become the transistor. " While Lilienfeld had probably given some inspiration or ideas to Shockley, it took actual implementation before it could be turned into product reality. So no, it wasn't 20 years between invention and application. Rather it took 20 years before someone actually put that theory into practical use. And once it was turned into practical use, industry commercialization followed rapidly. It didn't take 20 years after the Bell Labs' implementation for first applications to work. So it's worth asking what is different here. If people are building prototypes and small scale implementations, what is truly getting in the way of commercialization? [0] https://hackaday.com/2018/12/11/julius-lilienfeld-and-the-first-transistor/ https://hackaday.com/2018/12/11/julius-lilienfeld-and-the-fi...
FridayoLeary 5y ago
I still imagine that the manufacturing process for graphene still involves scientists in white lab coats, hunched over sheets of graphite, painstakingly applying scotch tape to it and cautiously lifting it again. That's just the mental picture in my head.
rexreed 5y ago
Cynicism? I think this is how many of us feel when we see all these breathless reports about how much some revolutionary new battery technology will be 100x more efficient at half the whatever, or how some new revolutionary solar energy system will generate 10x the power at one-third the whatever, or how Blockchain will do this, or how AI will do that, or how the decentrialized internet will finally be a reality, or even, yes, graphene will do everything we could have every hoped for at less cost, more efficiency, whatever. I'm as much a fan of the potential of graphene as anyone. I love the idea of graphene superconductors, etc. However, to me, casting what you refer to as a "cynical" glance is actually being a realist. There's nothing wrong with cheering on research innovation while also chastising the ability to actually productize that research. So much can be promised in an academic paper that fails upon meeting reality. In fact, I would venture to say that 90%+ of all academic research fails to materialize in any form into industrial applications. So is it cynical to ask the question "will we ever see the light of day for this technology in a way that consumers will be actually able to use"? Sounds like a rational and realistic response. It's probably unrealistic to say "just wait 20-30 more years and maybe you'll see a first application for this technology." Who has the interest or patience for that? Might as well read science fiction if you want to read about technology you'll never actually get your hands on. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pragramtism and realism. But I'm all for research and academic development. Keep on researching, and maybe one day, some day, we'll see some benefit there. Until then, Graphene will remain the lore of technology potential, but not technology accessible.
- Retric 5y ago
  Where exactly do you think the relentless process of technology comes from? Rechargeable batteries for example have become extraordinary cheaper in my lifetime. They also have higher capacity, last longer, weigh less, and are basically a pure upgrade with zero downsides. Sure not everything works out, but breathless breakthroughs of 20+ years ago directly translated into what seems like minor improvements today. The only things that seems disappointing is we are comparing them to yesterday’s tech not what was current back when this stuff was first discovered in a lab.
  - 5y ago

znpy 5y ago

I really appreciated your composure in not calling GP an idiot. I'm not sure I would have managed to be been so kind.

PudgePacket 5y ago

Can you blame people for getting fatigued from this kind of news? (Also it's been 16 years ;) ) Every 6 months there is a new use of graphene that promises 10x something, new cancer treatment that is revolutionary, new AI that can solve the worlds hardest problems ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

ProblemFactory 5y ago
It's understandable. Science journalism exaggerates results, even if the original researchers and their paper did not. And even the most promising scientific results can take decades to be applied in the industry and become available to consumers. But at the same time, this is Hacker News, not Mature Consumer Product News. Here is the best place to discuss what tech in 2030 might look like, not what we can buy today.
- lumberingjack 5y ago
  That's because journalists have zero morals now and nobody holds them accountable most of the graphene stories I read are complete bullshit
  - Tarsul 5y ago
    this might be true for certain graphene stories (or paid advertisements where it's covered up who paid for those) but please don't say that "journalists" (meaning the whole group of journalists) have "zero morals". Because (real) journalists at least report more or less about the information that they receive and (yes) interpret it, that's better than zero morals (how much can be argued). Zero morals are what you find with certain politicians (or social media users or paid-for-studies-by-cartels) that pull their stories out of their behinds with no accountability whatsoever. Journalists still have a certain higher standard. And we shouldn't neglect this or say otherwise because this would lead to further erosion of trust in media. People should trust news sources more than social media posts because real news sources are still (!) more trustworthy than social media posts. Critical reading and thinking for thyself should be on the agenda everywhere, though.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    well, its easy to fall into the trap of "get more clicks"... and its not just "science journals" that suffer from that
vikramkr 5y ago
Sure but the revolutionary cancer treatments and biotech stuff made it to market and now we have a new generation of cell and gene therapies that are incredibly effective send powerful used in patients. And mrna technology deployed to hundreds of millions of people to end a global pandemic. Biotech has been moving so fast since the human genome project that it makes no sense to call it a boy who cried wolf situation. Also google assistant is pretty nuts if you step back and think a out it. Ai has been doing pretty alright as well. IDK what exactly your expectations are for revolutionary treatments and powerful AIs but what we have already is pretty insane.
- rgbrenner 5y ago
  All of those things have been in development longer than graphene. mRNA was discovered in the 1950s.
  - vikramkr 5y ago
    My comment wasn't about the timeline, it was about how those did truly materialize and aren't crying wolf situations
failwhaleshark 5y ago
Graphene isn't a Moller Skycar though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
- DennisP 5y ago
  When I was about twelve years old I clipped a newspaper article about Moller and the flying saucer he had at the time. I'm in my mid-50s now. My consolation is that there are lots of other flying car projects now. Moller might be bad at taking stuff to production but also he was probably too early.

willis936 5y ago

REBCO was discovered in the 80s and we're only now rolling tapes into production. HTS are a game changer for what humans can do and yet it still took 40 years from discovery to first industrial use.

sagarm 5y ago
REBCO = rare earth barium copper oxide HTS = high temperature superconductor Apparently we can now make tapes of REBCO, which is a high temperature superconductor. The primary intended application is fusion research? Why wouldn't this be broadly useful?
- willis936 5y ago
  Most industries consider LTS fields good enough for their application and don't consider the investment into HTS worthwhile. If an MRI works at 6 T then why would they want to spend 2-3x as much for a 20 T field? You might get a better product but you'll price yourself out of the market. Similar logic for NMR, gyrotrons, etc. Every application that I can think of that uses LTS would benefit from HTS. Hopefully as supply chains are established and economies of scale kick in for HTS the price will go down.

marcosscriven 5y ago

I think being cynical about the hype is a different thing to being cynical about the potential.

Zenst 5y ago

I disagree that it's 100% on the poster, because: I believe the poster is jesting at the whole marking of it and let's be fair, it has been marketed as the next big thing and how it will solve so many things very soon; Many new science articles of how they did this and that and yet nothing. Now, whilst I can appreciate that from lab to industrial production is a very long bumpy process and can often be longer than it took to do the many year lab work. That whole aspect is almost always overlooked in the marketing (news release) rewrites that filter down into Joe public news feeds. That I appreciate and get. So for me the real issue is not cynicism slants, it's the way news media takes such science and run with it to the stage that they build such expectations. Though we have been here before - remember flying cars and the public mindset in the 60's-80's era or indeed robots circa the World fair and how they would be in everybody's homes. Oh and I'm extremely mindful that to do some science you need funding and with that, you often have to up-sell what your doing to be able to do that science in the first place. Which is why I don't default view such cynicism as 100% down to the individual, when they are a product of so many links in the news/science chain and I'm just aware of that whole news production line from scientists after some money to do some science, to those that fund it wanting a ROI on their investment, down to institutions making carefully worded news release statements that will not say how or when, just push you into how this `could` or `will`(without specifying a year) do X,Y or Z better; And on paper they are right. But then the whole reality from lab to your home is a very long bumpy road and not everything is cost effective or that clear cut. Which explains your flying cars phase and kitchen robots phase of decades past.

gjvc 5y ago

You are criticising someone for having an opinion. 15 years is sufficient time to get _something_ to a prototype that has investors clamouring, if not the first production runs. By comparison, William Shockley filed his patent in June 1948, and Texas Instruments started making transistors for portable radios in 1954. Different technologies move at different rates. Perhaps graphene needs the modern-day equivalent of a Fairchild Semiconductor. Also, the difficulty of "figuring out affordable, high quality, bulk production methods" of a technology has little to do with the serendipity of its discovery.

pclmulqdq 5y ago
The first patent on a transistor was assigned in 1933 to a man named Julius Lilienfeld, who invented (conceptualized) the MESFET. He didn't get the same press coverage as Shockley, and also failed to commercialize. Shockley's 1948 patent was relatively late. Perhaps we just haven't had a "Shockley moment" in graphene yet. It would be nice if these other people stopped getting so much press, though.
- rexreed 5y ago
  The fundamental difference between Lilienfeld and Shockley is that Lilienfeld didn't or wasn't able to even build a prototype. [0] "Sadly, Lilienfeld does not appear to have ever built a working prototype of his device; indeed, there’s no evidence that he ever even tried. He also never published any of his work other than as patent applications, so the world would remain ignorant of his insights for another two decades, when Bell Labs started working on what would become the transistor. " While Lilienfeld had probably given some inspiration or ideas to Shockley, it took actual implementation before it could be turned into product reality. So no, it wasn't 20 years between invention and application. Rather it took 20 years before someone actually put that theory into practical use. And once it was turned into practical use, industry commercialization followed rapidly. It didn't take 20 years after the Bell Labs' implementation for first applications to work. So it's worth asking what is different here. If people are building prototypes and small scale implementations, what is truly getting in the way of commercialization? [0] https://hackaday.com/2018/12/11/julius-lilienfeld-and-the-first-transistor/ https://hackaday.com/2018/12/11/julius-lilienfeld-and-the-fi...

FridayoLeary 5y ago

I still imagine that the manufacturing process for graphene still involves scientists in white lab coats, hunched over sheets of graphite, painstakingly applying scotch tape to it and cautiously lifting it again. That's just the mental picture in my head.

rexreed 5y ago

Cynicism? I think this is how many of us feel when we see all these breathless reports about how much some revolutionary new battery technology will be 100x more efficient at half the whatever, or how some new revolutionary solar energy system will generate 10x the power at one-third the whatever, or how Blockchain will do this, or how AI will do that, or how the decentrialized internet will finally be a reality, or even, yes, graphene will do everything we could have every hoped for at less cost, more efficiency, whatever. I'm as much a fan of the potential of graphene as anyone. I love the idea of graphene superconductors, etc. However, to me, casting what you refer to as a "cynical" glance is actually being a realist. There's nothing wrong with cheering on research innovation while also chastising the ability to actually productize that research. So much can be promised in an academic paper that fails upon meeting reality. In fact, I would venture to say that 90%+ of all academic research fails to materialize in any form into industrial applications. So is it cynical to ask the question "will we ever see the light of day for this technology in a way that consumers will be actually able to use"? Sounds like a rational and realistic response. It's probably unrealistic to say "just wait 20-30 more years and maybe you'll see a first application for this technology." Who has the interest or patience for that? Might as well read science fiction if you want to read about technology you'll never actually get your hands on. There's absolutely nothing wrong with pragramtism and realism. But I'm all for research and academic development. Keep on researching, and maybe one day, some day, we'll see some benefit there. Until then, Graphene will remain the lore of technology potential, but not technology accessible.

Retric 5y ago
Where exactly do you think the relentless process of technology comes from? Rechargeable batteries for example have become extraordinary cheaper in my lifetime. They also have higher capacity, last longer, weigh less, and are basically a pure upgrade with zero downsides. Sure not everything works out, but breathless breakthroughs of 20+ years ago directly translated into what seems like minor improvements today. The only things that seems disappointing is we are comparing them to yesterday’s tech not what was current back when this stuff was first discovered in a lab.
- 5y ago