Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Electrons in Graphene Behave Like Light, Only Better (columbia.edu)
99 points by jonbaer on Oct 16, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 25 comments



When I first read the title, I thought it was about some frameworks, platforms or the like. I'm doomed.


There's some trouble to be found with project naming.

---

I once searched for documentation on Facebook's programming language Hack.

"hack facebook" was a sub-optimal search.

---

I later looked for LESS rules writter for Twitter's Pants build tool.

The results for "pants less" were...interesting.


I'm constantly confused and misled (my own fault) by a variety of project names. They're often either foods, or physics. "Delicious Snickers running Event Horizon..." that kind of thing.


That's how you tell if a project was named before or after lunch.


Ditto for Go. Despite everyone saying to call it 'Go', it's much easier to find Go-related resources via 'GoLang' than using 'Go'.


Likewise for Play (Java/Scala web framework). Searching for "Play Framework" is a must.


arf!

:)


Bet this would be really good for audio.


For a carbon-based 3-layer noise-dissipation system perchance?

https://i.imgur.com/Z9vv5OF.png


The next Monster Cables! :-)


Reading stuff like this makes me think what key pieces of technology made things viable a few years ago. For example what breakthrough made SSDs so widely available and cheap?


Generally repeatable mass production. Once you can repeatedly produce the item you can price it for how easily it can be produced and then scale up if the market will pay that price. Chips, SSDs, computers, plastics, anti-stick pans, you name it.

SSD's became "a thing" when they had the write endurance to replace hard drives. The problem of write endurance was solved by two breakthroughs, one was reliable multi-level cell (more than 1 bit per cell) and the other was device patterning small enough that you could mask endurance issues with excess capacity. That took NAND flash out of USB key fobs and into HDD replacements.

For graphene there are a couple of things to look for, one is the ability to mass produce it in sheets. If you can reliably produce sheets of graphene you can make a lot of interesting products. The second is doping/patterning. If you can selectively apply changes to a sheet of graphene to create features that act as transistors, then you start being able to build circuits into the sheets you can produce.

This particular paper talks about essentially 2D features in graphene that change the p-n junction path with properties that are similar to optical lenses. That provides a different way of switching elements (as opposed to charge manipulation) that means there are some new structures that should be considered when building a graphene transistor.


>For example what breakthrough made SSDs so widely available and cheap?

I say economy of scale were the major driving force.


Graphene has been touted as the miracle matarial for years now. But we're still so far from practical applications.


Graphene has practical (and currently deployed, although niche) applications in the real world.


I may be optimistic here, but this has all the features of something hugely disruptive.


It definitely seems like the wonder material of wonder materials, the main struggle has been to mass produce/commercialise it. I believe manipulating it is also non-trivial.


Been reading about the amazing properties of Graphene for years now, I'm surprised nothing substantial has come of it all yet (or at least nothing I've heard of)


Why not just use photons, which more readily exhibit this behavior?


It's still hard to produce photonic circuitry at the complexity we need for CPUs and such.

Graphine and nano carbon and carbyne and whatnot? Could be what we need to produce a post-5nm IC fabrication technology for manufacturers.


Well, yeah, but it's still hard to produce graphene circuitry at the complexity we need for CPUs and such, too. Are photonics actually harder?


A bit harder, yes.


my understanding is that the wavelength of light is a limiting factor in photonics.


There's more interference.


That's an area of very active research, it's not like people are ignoring it. And it's just starting to bear fruit.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: