
A Solution For Graphene Production - elleferrer
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/04/Solution-Graphene-Production.html
======
dm2
Some graphene facts that I've found after a few minutes of research:

\- One million times thinner than paper, one atom thick, it's considered a 2D
material.
[http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/4976821/Is_Graph...](http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/4976821/Is_Graphene_Really_a_2D_Material.html)

\- Strongest material, stronger than diamond.
[http://engineering.columbia.edu/even-defects-graphene-
strong...](http://engineering.columbia.edu/even-defects-graphene-strongest-
material-world)

\- Scotch tape was used to create a piece of graphene only 10 layers thick
(I'm guessing that means ~10 atoms thick? wow)

\- Moves electrons ~200 times faster than silicon:
[http://www.samsungvillage.com/blog/2012/05/18/samsungblog-
sa...](http://www.samsungvillage.com/blog/2012/05/18/samsungblog-samsung-
electronics-presents-a-new-graphene-device-structure/)

\- Transparent, only absorbs 2.3% of light.
[http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3071.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3071.pdf)

\- Can't switch flow of electricity off? [https://gigaom.com/2013/04/19/you-
can-pluck-graphene-from-th...](https://gigaom.com/2013/04/19/you-can-pluck-
graphene-from-thin-air-but-then-what/)

\- Can repair itself if you dump carbon atoms on the hole, they snap into
place. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1487](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1487)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene)

~~~
danford
I don't understand how it can be described as '2D'.

If it were 2D you would be able to stack an infinite amount without the stack
getting higher.

~~~
Osmium
Loosely, it refers to the degrees of freedom an electron has in the material.
For example, if you consider the 'density of states' – a quantity which can be
thought of as the number of electrons at a given energy level – it has a
different characteristic shape depending on whether the material is '1D',
'2D', '3D' or even '0D':

[http://britneyspears.ac/physics/dos/images/Image441.gif](http://britneyspears.ac/physics/dos/images/Image441.gif)

[As an aside, britneyspears.ac is a surprisingly good resource for a lot of
basic solid state physics. You can find a full derivation of the above graph
on there.]

Edit: To illustrate, this next graph is the density of states for three
different Carbon-based materials: graphite which is '3D', graphene which is
'2D' and a nanotube which is '1D'.

[http://me3007.wdfiles.com/local--resized-images/thermal-
and-...](http://me3007.wdfiles.com/local--resized-images/thermal-and-
electronic-properties-of-carbon-nanotubes/QuantDOS.jpg/medium.jpg) [Source:
Hone, J., Quantized Phonon Spectrum of Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes, Science,
289, 1730, 2000 via [http://me3007.wikidot.com/thermal-and-electronic-
properties-...](http://me3007.wikidot.com/thermal-and-electronic-properties-
of-carbon-nanotubes)]

You can see how these curves are similar to the theoretically-derived curves
in the previous graph.

------
ChuckMcM
Graphene is pretty cool stuff but just flakes of it are not as useful as
sheets are. That said, for experimental purposes this may be an excellent
laboratory technique for acquiring samples. Not sure why the anode needs to be
platinum though. It seems like any conductor would work there. Given that a
common "D" sized Dry Cell (aka a non-alkaline battery) will give you a
graphite rod (the center core is pure graphite) everything but the platinum
should be available off the shelf. If it really _does_ need a platinum anode
you'd have to raid a catalytic converter for that.

~~~
DougMerritt
Platinum is one of the best conductors while being less reactive than most,
while being tougher than gold and silver. Platinum (and platinized titanium or
other cores) anodes are common in industry.

A home experimenter could just try copper, expecting a much faster consumption
and reaction rate, and see what happens. I agree that it's not obvious that it
would ruin basic experiments immediately.

------
Peretus
If anyone is interested in making graphene yourself, Robert Murray Smith, a
chemist in the UK with an amazing Youtube channel, posts some tutorial videos
on making graphene at home. He describes this specific method here:
[http://youtu.be/QMp-RP8DcOc](http://youtu.be/QMp-RP8DcOc)

------
mamcx
How likely is to make graphene in your own house? Expensive? Dangerous?
Requiere high skillset?

I'm very naive about this, so in my wild imagination: What will need to
happend to have a "Rasperry/Arduino" set for graphene?

~~~
dm2
You can make it in your own house with a pencil and Scotch tape. (not exactly
but use a big block of graphite)

[http://phys.org/news/2010-12-graphene-pencil-sticky-tape-
vid...](http://phys.org/news/2010-12-graphene-pencil-sticky-tape-videos.html)

You can also follow the electrolysis method described in the original posts
paper or the silicon method or Scotch tape method in the article above.

Don't breathe it though, I've heard that's not good for your lungs.

------
Havoc
Is graphene a long term risk (like say plastic...or even asbestos)? The
benefits are obvious and we'll clearly mass produce it sooner or later, but is
this something we can safely throw at all kinds of problems?

~~~
Bluestrike2
Not really; or rather, I should say, the issue isn't nearly as clear-cut as
some of the anti-nanotech groups that have been screaming about it would have
you believe. They usually point to research by Ken Donaldson, showing similar
pathogenic effects between asbestos and nanotubes longer than 20 μm, but fail
to acknowledge that there's a difference between nanotubes (and graphene) in
general and long nanotubes in particular, as Donaldson's study clearly points
out. In brief:

> The basis of toxicity of asbestos and other fibrous materials is now
> reasonably well understood; their toxicity is based on the physical nature
> of the materials, rather than their chemical composition. In particular,
> fibres are expected to be toxic if they are long – longer than about 20 µm –
> and rigid. The mechanism of this pathogenicity is believed to be related to
> frustrated phagocytosis. Phagocytes are the cells whose job it is to engulf
> and destroy intruders – when they detect a foreign body like a fibre, they
> attempt to engulf it, but are unable to complete this process if the fibre
> is too long and rigid. Instead they release a burst of toxic products, which
> have no effect on the fibre but instead cause damage to the surrounding
> tissues. There is every reason to expect this mechanism to be active for
> nanotubes which are sufficiently long and rigid. [1]

Donaldson's research doesn't somehow negate the benefits--or even the
possibility--of nanotubes; on the contrary, he's rather upbeat:

> There is a silver lining to this research. According to Donaldson, "Short or
> curly carbon nanotubes did not behave like asbestos, and by knowing the
> possible dangers of long, thin carbon nanotubes, we can work to control
> them. It's a good news story, not a bad one. It shows that carbon nanotubes
> and their products could be made to be safe." [2]

[1]
[http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=409](http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=409)
[2]
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520144004.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520144004.htm)
[3]
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechno...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechnology/when-
you-keep-nanotubes-short-theyre-not-like-asbestos) [4]
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-
talk/semiconductors/devices/th...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-
talk/semiconductors/devices/the_long_and_short_of_carbon_n)

