New Graphene material is Paper-Thin &10 Times Stronger Than Steel (amazing)

Originally posted by templar knight
I think this "graphene" will be massive - a new stable Carbon allotrope - easy to make and they have not even started with its electrical properties yet!

Graphite is very slippery against other graphite.
One of the main problems with space construction is that metals stick to each other in a vacume.
Moving parts in space have to be lubricated with molybdenum which is a byproduct of copper mining and a form of graphite.

Having this new material being made of graphine itself is a major breakthrough for space construction.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by Kram09
Interesting....but this stuff has been around for a while.

It was theorised in 1962, but graphend itself was never successfully made until 2004. Also, that picture doesn't look like it's of graphene or graphene paper. Especially since graphene paper was only first made in 2007 and your photo looks a little older than that.

reply to post by SaturnFX


They've been discussing it for a relatively long time, you're right. Carbon nanotubes are a great material, but current efforts haven't really managed to get past a millimeter or so in length. Similarly, graphene paper hasn't been made much larger than 5 inches - hardly enough to apply in a commercial sense.

A product based on their discovery in '85? Read the literature. There are thousands of papers put there using all manner of graphene and fullerene based product for various 'products'. It didn't just start with the birth of graphene paper.

There is no suppression here. It was only made for the first time in 2007 and graphene, 2004. There is mountains of work being done on both. Bucky balls and nanotubes even more. All you have to do is search the scientific literature. Just because it isn't glaringly apparent and reported in the media doesn't mean it is being suppressed, you just aren't looking for it.

Here is a related article Wonder Material Graphene Becomes Lighting for Future Devices and Homes

Making the new graphene-based light-emitting electrochemical cells (LECs) can involve just liquid solutions or a printing press-style machine. That paves the way for inexpensive production of plastic-based lighting or displays. The researchers envision flexible LEC sheets that could be rolled up or placed almost anywhere.

This would enable the manufacturing of the scroll displays. Roll them up put them in your bag. Pull them out unroll for the new Ipod 20. Portable lightweight indestructible screens for all media. Screens could be part of clothing etc.

Opps

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

They've been discussing it for a relatively long time, you're right. Carbon nanotubes are a great material, but current efforts haven't really managed to get past a millimeter or so in length. Similarly, graphene paper hasn't been made much larger than 5 inches - hardly enough to apply in a commercial sense.

A product based on their discovery in '85? Read the literature. There are thousands of papers put there using all manner of graphene and fullerene based product for various 'products'. It didn't just start with the birth of graphene paper.

There is no suppression here. It was only made for the first time in 2007 and graphene, 2004. There is mountains of work being done on both. Bucky balls and nanotubes even more. All you have to do is search the scientific literature. Just because it isn't glaringly apparent and reported in the media doesn't mean it is being suppressed, you just aren't looking for it.

edit on 23-4-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)

naa man, 1985:

Buckminsterfullerene is a spherical molecule with the formula C60. It was first prepared in 1985 by Harold Kroto, James Heath, Sean O'Brien, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley at Rice University.[1] Kroto, Curl, and Smalley were awarded the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their roles in the discovery of buckminsterfullerene and the related class of molecules, the fullerenes. The name is an homage to Richard Buckminster Fuller, whose geodesic domes it resembles. Buckminsterfullerene was the first fullerene molecule discovered and it is also the most common in terms of natural occurrence, as it can be found in small quantities in soot.

I won't go into a long history of it, but basically they made the first buckyball in 1985...not papers, but actual construct.
From that point on, they continued to advance the methods along with find uses...but even initially they knew what the balls were going to be used for.
when I first tripped across it, basically it was very developed, the process of making, etc...yet for some reason, all these wonderful things that it was going to do was barely moving..lack of investors? who knows..I just remember hobby watching smally and such discussing it, and of course the nanotech firms speaking well of it.

this is not some 2007 product, the history shows a 25 year gap from first made to what is now being discussed and produced.

My conspiracy mind is screaming supressed tech finally allowed to drip to the slaves to save the economy..I think personally they have tons of tech lined up and prepared for release whenever the corporatist slavery starts to dip and the people start to become less slavelike...then yep..drip, engines start again, and voila...everything back to normal
-goes off on a rant, shaking fist, etc-

but anyhow, cool...lets get the crap out there and start building stuff with it already.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You don't need to go into the history of it. I'm a PhD organic chemist, without meaning to sound arrogant, I already know it. 1985 was when Buckballs were first made, but Buckyballs and graphene, while related, are not the same thing. It was also around the same time that scientists started trying to make graphene. It took until 2004 for that to happen. Chemistry really isn't as easy as wikipedia or even university lectures make it seem. It's hard and it's mostly just soul-crushing and depressing. Things never work and when they do, you're generally too skeptical to believe it's really true. Having said that, the excitement and joy I personally get when a rection I've been doing and re-doing for a month and a half is off the scales. Anyway, that's why the technogical aspect is only just appearing. No one's had anything to work with until now. Hard to make a product with something you don't have, wouldn't you say?

There is no gap in the progress. Science just takes time. Some problems take longer to figure out than others. I forget what kind of access the public has to journal sites, but if you find the American Chemical Society page or if you look up SciVerse, do a search and you will find a lot of papers. Even Google Scholar will do the job.

So, as I say, no suppression, no conspiracy and there are no scientists riding the ever-elusive government gravy train that I can never seem to find the platform for.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


-considers your post-

...

-decides to continue shaking his fist-

Yes, I understand the time gap from discovery and innovation to progress

however, come on...for just a moment, think about it
25 years
25 years from eureka to tech. and I know that at least by the mid-late 90s, it was more than just 3 guys in a lab developing and redeveloping.

long ago, foresight contacted me to create a international database website for people working specifically on advancement of nanotech research to press forward. (again, late 90s). I decided against it for various reasons that made sense at the time (biggest being overwhelmed and knowing my standards wouldn't be on par at the time), however, I am under the assumption that things were eventually put in place for such exchange.

I have known some of the head nanotech engineers over in europe and molecular engineers that were heavily involved in the carbon materials end...now, they didn't go on about conspiracy theories, but still

25 years...

25+ years???

They were finding carbon filliments in freaking candle smoke, easily manufactured, why did it take them a bajillion years to finally slap it together?!

if it was just one lab, or even just a dozen labs with small crews working independently, sure...but this is no small business we are talking...this is plastics x 10 with unprecidented amounts of cooperation.

ok, well...again, will try to drop my frustration and instead appreciate the step. If what your saying is the absolute universal truth, then I think its high time worldwide scientists unite and work together under the banner of scientific progression..else we are just spinning our wheels and barely getting traction.

Incidently, perhaps you can answer that question about unification and cooperation, or is everything gone the way of corporatism and trademark secrets making it near impossible for any measurable advancements (which incidently -is- the conspiracy)

reply to post by SaturnFX


25 years is quite a realistic time frame, really. I understand the frustration though. It's equally as frustrating for scientists, trust me.

To answer your last question, a unified effort towards a common goal spuds wonderful. But tell me, what goal should we choose? The thing is, with the explosion of knowledge over the last 30 years, research groups are forced to become more niche in what they do. Researching general concepts like cancer would be impossible for a single group to tackle. The approach generally taken is a 'contributing to the pool of knowledge' type deal. It tends to deviate science away from the bigger picture in a direct sense, but when you step back and look at it, I suppose each general area has a group of people making a concerted effort towards a more complete understanding. There's a lot left to figure out though and we're seem to be getting more data at rates higher than we can process. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not, but there you have it.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

25 years is quite a realistic time frame, really. I understand the frustration though. It's equally as frustrating for scientists, trust me.

To answer your last question, a unified effort towards a common goal spuds wonderful. But tell me, what goal should we choose?

Well, you asked a question that immediately hits my dreamer mentality.
I think the full focus (well, ok, divided focus anyhow, half towards product manufacturing for what is) should be for controllable self replication

Thats hitting the drexler fan in me of course.

Is nano-assembly possible? well, nature seems to do a fair job at it overall. Not saying our science is remotely close to nature mind you, however might as well start walking down the path

Now, I know drexler is a bit foolish in his thinking bottom up approach..but the end result is the important bit (assuming you know who Eric Drexler / Engines of creation is..even if it is fiction mixed with pseudo-science, the concept itself is solid and work is being done on it)

That is where the pool of scientific resources should be going for open source work in my opinion...and that is where our advanced scientists should be connecting around the world to work, even off hours, to better mankind.

Anyhow, there are groups out there working on this already...have been for a couple decades now, they just lack corporate funding so resources are a bit tight.(what corporation will fund a project to put material sciences out of business anyhow...its all about product development, not science that could eliminate resource requirements to begin with.)

Anyhow, thats my "dream"

Originally posted by TheyWontBelieveU

A colleague and I were discussing this, and wondering if this same paper thin Graphene could stop a bullet? We're assuming they're saying it's 10 times stronger than the best milled steel on this planet. There I'm back on topic again

Could 10 paper thicknesses of best milled steel stop a bullet, I doubt it, it's obviously a very useful material but let's not go overboard.

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by TheyWontBelieveU

A colleague and I were discussing this, and wondering if this same paper thin Graphene could stop a bullet? We're assuming they're saying it's 10 times stronger than the best milled steel on this planet. There I'm back on topic again

Could 10 paper thicknesses of best milled steel stop a bullet, I doubt it, it's obviously a very useful material but let's not go overboard.

Yes. it could
however, it will definately crack some ribs and cause blunt force trama

Add: sorry, thought you meant this material paper thin...not steel..
this is not steel

reply to post by SaturnFX


I know a little of his work. Unfortunately, you will never get all of the scientists in the world to unite to achieve a single goal, or even a major portion of them. We are human after all. If we had an ant mentality, then sure. Anyway, you'll find that a lot of scientists do international co-projects. For instance, my supervisor does co-projects with people at Stuttgart, in Germany as well as with CSIRO here in Australia.

Oh, and funding is a perpetual problem for many. Look up Richard Heck. He was a awarded a Noble prize in chemistry a few years back for work he did in the 80's. He made some amazing contributions to synthetic organic chemistry, but in 1983 retired because he was frustrated with having his funding mostly cut.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


I believe what you are saying but maybe, someday, an event or action will banned the world together against outside forces etc.

Man can be amazing.... sadly though... in both good and bad ways.