Read more.Quote:
Commercially available graphene performance has been impacted by silicon contamination.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Commercially available graphene performance has been impacted by silicon contamination.
I'm surprised the disparity between theoretical performance and real life testing hadn't already been investigated! Surely contamination would of been thought of before? Or has it been previously too hard to determine and people were satisfied with suppliers certifying their graphene was "top quality".
Perhaps there needs to be an accrediting body to QC graphene suppliers.
I am finding it hard to get my head around how a material can be two dimensional in a three dimensional world? Surely It is just very, very thinly flat, so much so that it would be impossible to see a side on view with the naked eye, but that doesn't mean it isn't actually there right?
2D in this case is referring to the arrangement of the atom in the material, and not to the material itself. All the atoms in the material are arranged in a way such that a single 2D plane can pass through them. Therefore it is considered a two-dimensional material even though the atoms themselves take up three-dimensional space.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
It's not literally two dimensional it's figuratively so, figuratively a piece of paper is 2D because you only need two numbers to find a location on its surface, literally it's not as it has thickness, same with Graphene because carbon atoms have three dimensions but for all intents and purposes it's two dimension as we only use two dimension to find a location on the surface of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
Thanks for that guys, that does make sense!
I read the snippet as though silicon isn't willing to give up the fight just yet! :laugh:
they need a viable low cost solution quickly
It's this kind of undisciplined terminology and repetition thereof that leads to immense confusion and plain straightforward screw-ups. It's this lack of rigorous logic that misleads and is probably at the root of the current failure of graphene to live up to expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
"For all intents and purposes" is utterly false! When we are talking science we do NOT talk figuratively if we want to actually make sense of things. There is no room for poetci licence and airy fairy meanderings. Science is about LITERAL FACTS. In this context, the term 2D is extremely misleading and plain WRONG. The thickness MATTERS. It matters enormously. Even mundane paper thickness matters enormously when it comes to how the damn stuff PERFORMS in the real world.
You come across as being rather annoyed, maybe it's something to do with you shouting (using all caps for words), or perhaps it's something to do with the rhetoric your using, either way you seem to be misrepresenting what i said, i said it's not literally two dimensional it's figuratively so, and i said that in response to EvilCycle asking how a material can be two dimensional in a three dimensional world.
If you have a better explanation of how a material can be two dimensional in a three dimensional world then i invite you to provide a better explanation.
:stupid:If science is about literal facts, please explain why light is described as a wave, and yet also discrete particles. Please explain why the doppler effect doesn't apply to the colours the eye sees, but telescopes can detect red-shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tropi
Science uses models, and likenesses to describe observations and make hypothesis as to why things happen, and what is actually occurring. Those models might change and refine over time. Eg the plum-pudding model of the atomic structure, or Newland's octaves. But to say science is about literal facts and there is no room for talking figuratively is hog wash. Science has, and will continue, to talk figuratively especially when conveying new ideas to unfamiliar audiences and lay-people.