{"id":15009,"date":"2021-10-14T15:14:51","date_gmt":"2021-10-14T14:14:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/?p=15009"},"modified":"2021-11-12T14:20:17","modified_gmt":"2021-11-12T14:20:17","slug":"low-cost-industrial-scale-high-quality-cvd-graphene-production","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/low-cost-industrial-scale-high-quality-cvd-graphene-production\/15009\/","title":{"rendered":"Low cost, industrial scale, high-quality CVD graphene production"},"content":{"rendered":"
Graphene has been heralded as a \u2018wonder material\u2019 since its discovery by Professors Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov in 2004. And why not? With the thickness of a single atom, pristine graphene has been tested in countless theoretical experiments, all of which have demonstrated that its properties are extraordinary, including:<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s put that into plain English: graphene is the strongest, thinnest, and most conductive material known to man. It is also transparent, impermeable, chemically inert, and biocompatible. The potential of graphene was thought to be limited only by our imagination, leading to suggestions that it could enable us to produce an endless supply of clean water, batteries that could be recharged in seconds, but which would last for days \u2013 and even a space elevator! Is it any wonder Geim and Novoselov were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics?<\/p>\n
Graphene has been exhaustively studied, perhaps more so than any material in history. Yet, after almost two decades of study, we are left with a troubling dichotomy: while graphene\u2019s properties are very much true, they are also grossly misleading. \u2018Pristine graphene\u2019 cannot be synthesised at any scale under real world conditions (at least not yet). Moreover, graphene has proved to be complicated and expensive to produce. Its technical and commercial potential, once thought of as unlimited, has led some people to think of it more as a fantasy. Indeed, the hype surrounding graphene has arguably led to more disappointment than hope.<\/p>\n
Of course, even a casual student of history could provide a laundry list of fervently held \u2018truths\u2019 that were proven to be not merely misleading, but rather completely wrong (e.g., the Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, stress causes ulcers, and so on). This is not the case with graphene<\/strong>. Science has enabled us to identify and study graphene, and to understand its theoretical potential. Science alone cannot, however, enable us to realise that potential.<\/p>\n We live in complex and chaotic times; not everything can be known or predicted. Yet over time, the order inherent in nature makes itself apparent, and the chaos usually pales in comparison when it does. Some men see this, but most do not. The careers of Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, and Albert Einstein clearly illustrate that while they could not always explain it perfectly, they understood the order found in nature better than most.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Richard Feynman was Einstein\u2019s prot\u00e9g\u00e9. In April 1966, Feynman delivered an address to the National Science Teachers Association, in which he suggested how students could be made to think like scientists \u2014 be open-minded, curious, and especially, to doubt. During the lecture, he gave a definition of science, which he said was derived from several stages. The evolution of intelligent life on planet Earth \u2013 creatures such as cats that play and learn from experience. The evolution of humans, who started using language to pass knowledge from one individual to the next, to preserve information for future generations.<\/p>\n Of course, incorrect knowledge could be passed down just as easily as correct knowledge, so another step was needed. Galileo and others started doubting the truth of what was passed down and to investigate ab initio<\/em>, from experience, what the true situation was \u2013 and thus science was born. Science, as defined by Feynman, allows us to see the order built within the Universe clearly \u2013 provided we are open-minded, curious, and willing to doubt what we know.<\/p>\n In December 1959 Feynman gave a speech to the American Physical Society entitled \u2018Plenty of Room at the Bottom.\u2019 Feynman himself described the focus of the talk as \u201cthe problem of manipulating and controlling things on a small scale.\u201d It is frequently cited as the birth of nanotechnology, and it still offers key insights into understanding the world around us \u2013 and it is exceptionally valuable when trying to understand graphene.<\/p>\n During his presentation, Feynman said: \u201cI am not afraid to consider the final question as to whether, ultimately \u2013 in the great future \u2013 we can arrange the atoms the way we want\u2026 What would happen if we could arrange the atoms one by one the way we want them? (Within practical limits, you can\u2019t put them so that they are chemically unstable, for example).\u201d<\/p>\n What could we do with layered structures that have the right layers? What would the properties of materials be if we could really arrange the atoms the way we want them?<\/strong> They would be very interesting to investigate theoretically. I can\u2019t see exactly what would happen, but I can hardly doubt that when we have some control of the arrangement of things on a small scale, we will get an enormously greater range of things we can do, due to the possible properties that such substances can have.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAtoms on a small scale behave like nothing on a large scale, for they satisfy the laws of quantum mechanics. So, as we go down and fiddle around with the atoms down there, we are working with different laws, and we can expect to do different things.\u201d<\/p>\n The material Feynman is describing is unquestionably graphene, although it is simply the first of many such nanomaterials. What this means is that the \u2018great future\u2019 Feynman envisioned has finally arrived. While this future is still in its infancy \u2013 as is graphene \u2013 we do have the ability to arrange atoms one by one the way we want them. The technology we use will be viewed as impossibly crude years from now, but we once sent a man to the Moon with technology more limited than what is found in a ubiquitous smart phone today.<\/p>\nDefining science<\/h3>\n
Plenty of room at the bottom<\/h3>\n
General Graphene<\/h3>\n