Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Graphene Can Be Made With Table Sugar

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the let's-grid-it-on dept.

Science 142

Zothecula writes with this snippet from Gizmag: "There's no doubt that the discovery of graphene is one sweet breakthrough. The remarkable material offers everything from faster, cooler electronics and cheaper lithium-ion batteries to faster DNA sequencing and single-atom transistors. Researchers at Rice University have made graphene even sweeter by developing a way to make pristine sheets of the one-atom-thick form of carbon from plain table sugar and other carbon-based substances. In another plus, the one-step process takes place at temperatures low enough to make the wonder material easy to manufacture."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

mmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252132)

How delicious!

'...and other carbon-based substances' (4, Funny)

RDW (41497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252388)

Soylent Graphene is people!

Re:'...and other carbon-based substances' (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252966)

Enterprise is infested with carbon units.

Re:'...and other carbon-based substances' (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253448)

Hmmmm.... how to enjoy corn syrup without getting fat...

That's pretty (0, Redundant)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252138)

sweet!

cmon (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252162)

it wasn't a funny joke to begin with

Dude. (0)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252298)

What's the ingredients list say for my CPU?

Re:Dude. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252442)

Sweet. What does mine say?

Re:Dude. (1, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252588)

It depends on where you bought it. If it's in the USA, then high-fructose corn syrup.

Re:Dude. (1)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254788)

Not anymore. Now it's CORN SUGAR!

Re:Dude. (2, Funny)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253600)

Ingredients: Sand, Aluminum, natural and artificial flavoring.

Re:Dude. (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254082)

There has to be a reason ants like to eat circuit boards after all.

Re:Dude. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254196)

It's some shit on a silicon shingle.

Who'll profit? (5, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252178)

The graphene story is an excellent case study for innovation policy

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Inequality_between_small_and_large_patent_holders#Small_patent_holders_have_a_weak_negotiating_position [swpat.org]

Inventing graphene gets you nothing, but inventing applications for it will make you rich.

Really a prizes system seems to be worth trying as a replacement for the patent system in some fields. How many millions does the patent system cost our governments? What if there were multi-million dollar prizes up for grabs, and freedom to operate for everyone, instead of monopolies?

(Yeh, the lawyers won't help us lobby for this change...)

Re:Who'll profit? (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252430)

Nobody invented graphene. It was discovered, rendering it basically unpatentable, so I'm not sure why not sure what that has to do with small patent holders. However with regards to your second point, inventing a clever way of creating it was worth the Nobel Prize [physicsworld.com] .

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252604)

(Thanks for correcting my invent/discover slip.)

The relation is that this discovery represents progress, and there was a prize on offer rather than a monopoly, and the discovery happened. That's an example of how a prize is sufficient.

As for small and large companies, with patents, the latter win. The wiki page explains why. With prizes, everyone can compete.

As for the patentability of substances: medicines are substances, and they get patented. Graphene could either be patented in the same way, or the process of making/purifying it could be patented.

The discoverer of Graphene also didn't say that getting a patent would be a problem. He said that asserting his patent against the megacorps would be impossible and would just waste decades and a lot of money.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252642)

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with his quote about tying up an entire nation in lawyers' fees. I just don't think that graphene itself would've been patentable. Devices and methods, yes.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252880)

Who's going to fund all the prizes?

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253916)

More important to me is who determines what constitutes a prize-worthy discovery? And are they listed ahead of time, or are are they awarded to things no one had considered?

Re:Who'll profit? (4, Informative)

Musically_ut (1054312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252678)

Nobody invented graphene. It was discovered, rendering it basically unpatentable, so I'm not sure why not sure what that has to do with small patent holders. However with regards to your second point, inventing a clever way of creating it was worth the Nobel Prize [physicsworld.com] .

I would not say that Grephene was not patentable. The Nobel prize winners were on the verge of doing it, but they did not as they said in their interview [techdirt.com] .

And it seems they did so with good reason.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253350)

whaddya know. without patents, people actually develop on an idea and improve it!

I swear, one day our intellectual property brigade (worldwide association of assholes/idiots/morons in their various high ranking capacities - IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, WIPO,ASCAP,BSA the list is beyond long) will catch on to this idea, years later - since it must be patented or something.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255668)

no, they never will catch on, they'll never change. The only option for us is the B ship. Send them ahead to prepare the next planet for the little people, the rest of us.

Re:Who'll profit? (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252478)

Against Intellectual Property by Boldrin and Leving is a good book:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/intellectual.htm [ucla.edu]

However, you say how much money Patents cost the Government? It costs them nothing (well something but it's recuperated in taxes, fees, and corporate income tax) -- the real cost is societal.

However, corps are still under the dream that China will play nice and all that, and they'll get into that huge market. The truth is, countries don't follow IP laws until it is in their interest to do so (America did the same in her early history) and that means when China is ready to follow IP laws, it's only because they'll be so invested and huge that they'll crush us in our own game.

How much does the USPTO cost? (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252528)

> how much money Patents cost the Government? It costs them nothing

Really? Can you point me to where I can find this? (If it's in that book, which chapter?)

I've been looking for this info for a while, but I need something to back it up.

The USPTO is always talking about needing their budget expanded. Aren't they talking about a budget given to them by the federal govt? The societal costs are certainly larger than the financial costs (if any) to the government, but I'd like to get all the numbers.

Re:How much does the USPTO cost? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252594)

The US patent office does not get to keep patent fees. They go into the general budget and then some percentage is returned by the federal government. This percentage may be greater than 100%, in which case they'd be costing money, but given that they go up to tens of thousands of dollars for patents more than a decade old it seems unlikely.

Re:How much does the USPTO cost? (3, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253914)

The PTO is funded by user fees. The problem is that if they take in more fees than they budgeted for, the rest goes to general revenue to be spent on other things. When the economy turns downward, the PTO ends up taking in less in fees than its fixed costs (building maintenance, salaries, etc). The 'budget expansion' you're referring to is a plan to essentially refund some of the almost $1 billion in excess fees that have been taken from the PTO over the years. Part of it would make up for the current budget shortfall and part of it would be used for infrastructure improvements like IT upgrades.

You can find out all you want to know (and more!) about the PTO budget in its 2011 budget report [uspto.gov] . On page 2 you'll find "USPTO is a fully fee funded agency (with fee collections appropriated by the Congress), and does not rely on regular funding from the General Treasury."

For those of you wondering how the PTO can have budget problems when the number of patent applications is at or near record highs: the cost of examination is not fully paid for on the front end. Much of the cost is made up on the back end through maintenance fees. The problem right now has more to do with patent holders letting patents go abandoned (and thus not paying maintenance fees) than it does application rates dropping off. This is discussed in page 7 of the budget report I linked.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253358)

us wants china to follow our system because we're trying to get the hell out of it - it's like putting poison in china's waters that we've had for years and are getting rid of.

meanwhile, patents are not free of non-societal cost. there is a real financial cost for all the legal work that gets tied up in the system from patents, which has shot up substantially.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253558)

However, you say how much money Patents cost the Government? It costs them nothing (well something but it's recuperated in taxes, fees, and corporate income tax) -- the real cost is societal.

- that's a fallacy. If the gov't wanted to maximize its taxes through taxing sales (but not income), they'd allow the free market to work.

Of-course most gov'ts tax income, so they prefer monopolies, so it makes sense for them to run protection rackets, which are patents etc. The monopolies make so much money on these things, that it's just easier to tax their incomes, and nobody in gov't is an economic genius that can understand that in a free market with no regulations there would be much more taxable sales activity going on.

So yes, it does cost the society in terms of higher prices and reduced choices and it costs the gov't if gov't were actually honest players and didn't try to run centralized economies.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253760)

The Government pretty much behaves as a corporation or even an individual and among other activities it purchases items for use. Like any other individual or corporation many of the items it purchases might be less expensive if the barriers to market entry like patents didn't exist, or conversely they might be more expensive due to less competitors entering a market without barriers and their almost guaranteed profits. On one hand the item might not even exist without patent protection making the shifting the risk to benefit ratio for R&D investment or the additional innovation brought about be a lack of patent protection might make a particular item laughably obsolete.
My guess is if you could really answer these questions, the Nobel committee would be calling you about a trip to Stockholm, because no one knows how much patents really cost the Government.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

Grond (15515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253968)

The book is Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine, and it has been criticized for both factual and logical errors. One example is the article Watt, Again? Boldrin and Levine Still Exaggerate the Adverse Effect of Patents on the Progress of Steam Power [bepress.com] :

In an earlier comment on Boldrin and Levine’s 2003 lecture on patents and their effect on technology, we observed that their account of James Watt’s influence on the progress of steam technology contained factual errors which tended to exaggerate the negative consequences of Watt’s patent. We concluded that it was far from obvious that a corrected account would support Boldrin and Levine’s bold conjectures. While Boldrin and Levine’s 2008 “Against Intellectual Monopoly” begins with a new version of Watt’s story that claims to take our earlier criticisms into account, here we assess that version and conclude that it shares many of the shortcomings of the original.

The full article is available for free download via that Berkeley Electronic Press link.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254030)

"it's only because they'll be so invested and huge that they'll crush us in our own game."

At this point, only being crushed will get any attention that matters because the system is rotten and the public find ignorance delectable.

China, by the way, benefited from being reformatted by WWII and the Communist takover, which smashed decayed social structures.

The US doesn't need a Mao, but a national calamity is perhaps in order.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254706)

It also killed tens of millions and wrecked the environment. It's rather cavalier to call it a benefit without at least a disclaimer.

Re:Who'll profit? (-1, Troll)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254708)

The US doesn't need a Mao, but a national calamity is perhaps in order.

Uh huh. National calamities have a tendency to result in remarkably poor societal decisions. Witness what happened when Bush trashed the economy. We got someone worse.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

gafisher (865473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252682)

The best "prize" system for encouraging innovation already exists, and you named it: "... inventing applications for it will make you rich." The patent system as it exists today functions almost exactly opposite to what it was intended to do, which was to share knowledge and ... encourage innovation. One severe failing in that system is the tolerance of preclusive patents, those filed specifically and only to keep a discovery off the market or to keep others from applying concepts which might compete with the patent-holder's core business. To end this practice patents should expire if they aren't developed into marketable form -- and actual products -- within, say, five years.

Re:Who'll profit? (2, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252912)

Well, actually, the present system only rewards marketable advances. What about people who do pure science? If you create a system that only rewards greedy people who can only look ahead for the short time until their patent runs out, then those people will have all the power. Maybe we should re-gear the system to reward people for innovating, not for coming up with a new, clever way to overcharge people.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

gafisher (865473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253158)

Why should pure science be patentable?

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253992)

Almost everything (non-biological, non-geological) that exists today is the result of science, in one form or another. Therefore, almost nothing would be patentable.

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253002)

How will the prize be funded? Who will set the prizes? Who would be able to decide, in advance, which discoveries/inventions will be useful five - let alone ten or twenty - years down the line?

Markets aren't perfect but I'd trust them over a committee of well-connected placemen. Isn't that how science in the USSR worked?

Re:Who'll profit? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254110)

The only things wrong with patents are that they are granted far too freely, for obvious things, cost way too much to get, and that software can hold both patent and copyright. IMO there should be no software patents.

first graphene production (4, Informative)

neanderlander (637187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252182)

On a side note, Andre Geim supposedly designed the first graphene production process like this: his students used scotch-tape to pull thin layers of graphite from a piece of paper with pencil drawings on it.

Re:first graphene production (4, Interesting)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252202)

On a side note, scotch tape releases x-rays when you peel it: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/10/gallery_xray_tape?slide=1&slideView=7 [wired.com]

Re:first graphene production (1)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252876)

On a side note, x-rays are typically shielded by lead.

Re:first graphene production (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252898)

On a side note, lead isn't actually part of pencil lead.

Re:first graphene production (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254032)

On a side note, the first graphene production process used scotch tape and pencil lead smeared on paper.

Hey wait, this seems familiar...

Re:first graphene production (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252928)

On a side note, when graphite was discovered in 1565, they thought it was a form of lead, and, like ancient Roman lead styluses, made pencils out of it.

Re:first graphene production (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254926)

Pencil lead isn't lead, it's graphite. Graphite won't shield x-rays, but I doubt there is a harmful amount of x-rays released.

Re:first graphene production (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253332)

On a side note, scotch tape releases x-rays when you peel it:

In a vacuum.

Re:first graphene production (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254314)

only in a vacuum, gasses will ionize and short out the required electrical potential

Re:first graphene production (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252206)

My understanding is that that process produced low-quality, and not very big, sheets. Further, you had to manually search through the debris on the tape to find them.

This process yields large high-quality sheets, to basically any specification, for low cost and using relatively simple equipment (800C furnaces are not that uncommon, although the gas flow may be more tricky to get right).

Re:first graphene production (5, Interesting)

Ramble (940291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252748)

I'm lucky enough to actually do research on graphene, this method is still used (albeit carefully and in a clean room so it's not as flippant as it sounds).

Re:first graphene production (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252932)

Interesting to hear this method is still used. Why the mod down?

Re:first graphene production (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34254104)

It's not moderation, he posts at -1 for some reason. Dunno why, maybe bad karma. *shrug*

Re:first graphene production (1)

Karasuni (1682846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255036)

In research the 'scotch tape technique' is still used as the easiest method to generate graphene and graphite sheets. The scientific term is exfoliation of HOPG (Highly Orderdered Pyrolitic Graphite) and basically comes down to pulling apart two scotch tapes from each other and/or placing the tape on a SiO layer. Other methods include bottom-up synthesis on metals (difficult to fix the amount of layers) or SiC wafers (expensive, difficult to control). For flexible displays SAMSUNG is currently just printing large 30 inch sheets of graphene (with a support polymer).

Looks like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252192)

Slashdot's not the only place lacking decent editors. :)

...produced graphene in any form he desired, including single-, bi- or multiplayer sheets.

Re:Looks like... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252230)

Haha good catch!

I wonder if there's some backstory to that ;).

Re:Looks like... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252550)

multiplayer sheets? What are they doing? Playing Halo? :p

and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252220)

we'll MAYBE see the best applications in 2050? After all it's not like transistors came on the scene last year~

interconnects (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252222)

does this mean that they'll be able to print graphene interconnects between transistors?

Re:interconnects (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253348)

Not yet. First they have to figure out how to either create it on top of silicon dioxide or make it elsewhere and transfer it there. Getting the formation temperature down below the point where doped silicon is damaged is progress, though.

HOLY SHIT? (-1, Redundant)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252304)

Graphene made with just normal fucking sugar? NO FUCKING WAY, MAN!!!

Re:HOLY SHIT? (3, Interesting)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252402)

More fun facts: Some people have made carbon nanotubes from grass. [iop.org]

Re:HOLY SHIT? (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252410)

OMFG!!! This is fucking amazing!!

Nanotubes from grass? Who is going to tell my fucking dealer????

Re:HOLY SHIT? (0, Redundant)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254126)

I nominate this off-topic post for best comment of the thread.

Re:HOLY SHIT? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255392)

Too bad the youngsters here don't realise that "grass" use to mean "marijuana" or you'd have gotten a "funny" mod.

Just think, your nanotube grass would already be rolled, no zigzags necessary. They'd be tiny little joints, though!

And you can fertilize your lawn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252340)

with used motor oil.

Re:And you can fertilize your lawn (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253918)

Only if you want the EPA to come dig up your entire lawn and then charge you for it (assuming they find out).

Re:And you can fertilize your lawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34255378)

Relax big guy. It was a joke. He isn't actually going to fertilize his lawn with it.

So this means... (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252350)

You can make graphene by peeling scotch tape off a cup cake?

Jeph Jacques would be amused. :P

Sweet (1, Interesting)

beuges (613130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252366)

Now all we need is to figure a way to get all the cabon-laden pollution to be recycled into graphene and we'll be all set. How plausible would that be once the technology is refined enough?

Re:Sweet (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252426)

We need the energy to split it off the oxygen first. So nuclear or solar power would have to be more available first.

Re:Sweet (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252440)

"CO2 -> material" is a problem of energy rather than chemistry. The energy generated by making CO2 is less than the energy needed to turn that CO2 into something useful (assuming useful materials have a substantially higher enthalpy of formation and lower entropy than fuels). So you have to have an energy source which is capable of replacing fossil fuels first.

Re:Sweet (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252574)

So you have to have an energy source which is capable of replacing fossil fuels first.

The only real problem with existing renewable energy sources is geographical and temporal availability. e.g. for wind, it's not always windy enough, and in some places it's never windy enough, making it a challenge to get a consistent power supply where it's needed.

For a CO2 -> material plant, it seems to be you could build it where the energy is, and run it at a variable rate, depending on what energy nature throws your way.

Next challenge, getting the CO2 in, and shipping the carbon products out. There are similar issues with water -> hydrogen plants.

Re:Sweet (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252674)

As a partial scrubber that happens to make useful stuff, that'd work. I parsed beuges' comment as asking if we could pull off a complete scrubbing of our excess CO2 from the atmosphere, which isn't an option. You reach the stage where you're able to completely replace your fossil fuels with a new energy source, before you reach the stage where you keep your fossil fuels and clean up using a CO2->materials process.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253188)

...There are similar issues with water -> hydrogen plants.

Except that almost all of the world's population lives near a body of water.

Re:Sweet (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255008)

...There are similar issues with water -> hydrogen plants.

Except that almost all of the world's population lives near a body of water.

Yes, but for the water has to be close to a renewable energy source too.

Wind/Sun/etc + water = hydrogen + oxygen.
Hydrogen + oxygen = energy

You need the water near the renewable, and then you need to transport the hydrogen to where the energy is needed. i.e. where people are.

If the people are close to the renewable, you don't need to go through the hydrogen stage. Just let them use the energy directly.

Re:Sweet (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255118)

Or just skip the middle and use the renewable (well net CO2 increasing I guess is more what is being talked about) energy sources for energy and not produce that CO2 in the first place...

Re:Sweet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252714)

So you have to have an energy source which is capable of replacing fossil fuels first.

Done. It's not a source, it's a solution. You can only get out of the system what you put into it.

I think that what it actually needed is for us geeks to stop lining up to work in the big labs, and start our own businesses. We have the intellect and the drive to succeed, and most developed nations have engineered conveyor belts of investor capital that start rolling at the sight of a good idea and a capable leader. A lesson that cost 700 billion USD can be retold by the recently moribund and destitute homeless, that if you intend to just gamble with other people's money there might not be enough socialism left to let you rebound when you're found out.
Strangest thing though; it turns out that when you share there's more to go around for everyone. It's game theory versus the second law of thermodynamics.

When you run your own business it imposes on you the data structure needed to be aware of your surroundings. Money is the unit by which economy is measured and the important thing isn't that you have a lot of it, but rather that it is accurate. It boils down to networking, which is why people think the Masons are rich conspirators bent on world domination, but ideally they're just like-minded people who know they can cooperate to reach a common goal.

The only question is, do you want to grind in WoW and network with people who waste their time, or do you want to grind with the people who carefully invest their time into a brighter future?

Somehow (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253018)

this is going to involve needle snakes and gorillas...

Re:Sweet (1)

gafisher (865473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252602)

Unless we find enough applications to make graphene really useful, it would just be an expensive way to store carbon. It would almost certainly be cheaper to turn pollution into pencil lead.

Re:Sweet (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253306)

There are a vast number of applications for graphene which will become practical as soon as it can be made inexpensively.

Carbon-based substances, such as... man! (0)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252384)

n/t

Re:Carbon-based substances, such as... man! (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252562)

Soylent Graphene is made from people!

DIY? (2, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252544)

Can I make it at home? And use it in a 3D printer?

Re:DIY? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253036)

It's way too thin to make sense in a 3D printer.

Re:DIY? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253384)

It's way too thin to make sense in a 3D printer.

That's funny... because you were way too thick to get his joke! :P

Re:DIY? (2, Interesting)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253056)

You can make it at home, but an 800C furnance may be more expensive than you think (but still within reach of an individual). You'll probably no be able to do anything usefull with it (on a 3D printer or anywhere else).

Re:DIY? (1)

eshbums (1557147) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254604)

I guess you could cook it four times as long at 200C, right? Or hell, throw it in an EZ Bake and set the timer for 200 days. Presto!

It's about time (1)

gafisher (865473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252578)

Finally -- a useful application for table sugar!

makes you wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34252676)

can i recycle my (new)old electronics digestively?

Single Atoms? (5, Interesting)

Ramble (940291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252774)

Single atom transistors? Where are they getting this from? I do work with graphene and to introduce a bandgap (either in single or multilayer sheets) you need to introduce an energy difference between atoms - in the case of a single sheet you do that by using a substrate with a similar structure (e.g. Boron nitride) so the two basis atoms of graphene experience different energies or in the case of multiple sheets you can use an electric field ala FETs. In no way could you do this with a single atom as graphene has no band gap and is thus a metal normally.

Wow, sugar contains carbon! Who knew? (-1, Redundant)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34252896)

I imagine any organic chemical that contains carbon and can be easily broken down chemically or by heat could be used. This is hardly news.

From the article: "five-atom rings in fluorene" (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253246)

WTF?

Re:From the article: "five-atom rings in fluorene" (4, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254782)

Fluorene [wikipedia.org] is a hydrocarbon compound named for its fluorescence. Despite what the name suggests, it contains no fluorine [wikipedia.org] .

Present tense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253380)

"The remarkable material offers everything from faster, cooler electronics and cheaper lithium-ion batteries to faster DNA sequencing and single-atom transistors."

"Offers"? Really? Can we get a story without drooling hyperbole from the unbridled imagination of a ten year old? Graphene "offers" no such things. It might, perhaps, one day, eventually lead to maybe an idea of an inkling of how to do these things. But really, it's not graphene that "offers" these things, it's people.

How Sweet it is!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34253386)

How Sweet it is!!

cheap pcs now? (0, Offtopic)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253634)

Does that mean in a few years we will start seeing very cheap pcs, for 100$ for the whole thing, god i think we paid enough over the years, we could enjoy some cheaply made pcs! When I think back at a time when I had paid nearly 5k$ american for top of the line laptop for work,school to program, and see the same model today at 200$, i got to say, I am crying on the inside.

Never again will i spend even 300$ for a pc or laptop, i will stick to around 200$ range, even if it has to be a bit used, the turn over period is getting too small these days to even consider spending more the that.

The use (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34253828)

of these sweet puns has soured my interest in graphene.

Subsidies (0)

bjwest (14070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34254760)

Great! Now can we transfer our corn subsidies over to sugar crops, get rid of corn sugar in everything and go with real sugar again? I'm getting tired of having to search for Mexican Coke.

Re:Subsidies (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34255194)

I dn't want sugar back, it's worse for you because you need more of it to get the same sweetness. You are basically advocating more sweetner in peoples lives. But hey, don't let actually fact influence your thinking.

Re:Subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34255500)

I eat next to no naturally sweetened stuff. What I need is diet cheese. Seriously, I can eat half a pound of cheese a sitting. Cheddar, bleu, gorgonzola, the stronger the better (I buy the extra aged sharp cheddar and store it another couple of months before cracking it open. Oh yeahhh baby!)

Now if only they could do for milk fat what artificial sweeteners have done for sugar!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?