[HN Gopher] Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
___________________________________________________________________
Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
Author : peutetre
Score : 205 points
Date : 2024-04-18 01:09 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (liu.se)
(TXT) w3m dump (liu.se)
| throwup238 wrote:
| Here we go again... Another nobel prize, another decade of
| impotent battery news, and countless superconductivity false
| starts.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out
| how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could
| have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually
| in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood,
| who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and
| again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming,
| but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who
| spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in
| the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the
| worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so
| that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
| who knew neither victory nor defeat."
|
| Theodore Roosevelt
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Only the horseman falls on the battlefield, how will that
| child fall who crawls on his knees.
|
| Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi
| spauldo wrote:
| Dude apparently didn't have a hand in raising any children
| if he's never seen a crawling child fall.
|
| Failure exists at all levels.
| aledalgrande wrote:
| Did you even read the article? It doesn't even have
| superconductor properties. It's classed as a semiconductor with
| 2 free sites.
| foobarian wrote:
| You can get these in resin jewelry making kits. The gold leaf in
| those is super thin!
| ink_13 wrote:
| Not this thin, unless Chinese manufacturing has made heretofore
| unknown advances in materials science.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| You jest, but I wouldn't put it past cheap Chinese
| manufacturing to somehow do this at some point in the next
| 100 years. "How did you invent a room temperature
| supraconductor? -we thought it would save us $0.00001 per
| part"
| Reubachi wrote:
| Eh, margins aren't that low on cheap Chinese gear with
| questionable IP rights. Not so low that they would develop
| an in house solution to a .02 cent market deficiency.
|
| I know you're jesting the jester, but Chinese manufacturing
| is on par with "the west" in terms of making money hand
| over fist on selling plastic junk, with minimal risk due to
| overpricing
| LoganDark wrote:
| If you can see or handle it, it's not a single atom thick.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Graphene is definitely observable every time you use a
| pencil.
|
| It will mostly be graphite, but parts are graphene as well.
| And if that isn't enough, the tape method of producing
| graphene also makes a visible layer.
| mkl wrote:
| I doubt you're ever seeing a single layer from a pencil.
|
| "Although graphene is probably produced every time one uses
| a pencil, it is extremely difficult to find small graphene
| crystallites in the "haystack" of millions of thicker
| graphitic flakes which appear during the cleavage. In fact,
| no modern visualization technique including atomic-force,
| scanning- tunneling, and electron microscopies is capable
| of finding graphene because of their extremely low
| throughput at the required atomic resolution or the absence
| of clear signatures distinguishing atomic monolayers from
| thicker flakes." -- Making Graphene Visible https://www.phy
| sics.purdue.edu/quantum/files/CarbonNano/make..., which
| shows it can be made visible by preparing it on an
| appropriate substrate.
|
| More here, where the answer is both "no", and "yes, if it's
| big enough": https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-graphene-
| visible-to-the-...
| kylebenzle wrote:
| Not true.
| achow wrote:
| Graphite, not graphene.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Says you! Some of us have the skills required to handle a
| .0000003mm mechanical pencil. In 2B even!
| LoganDark wrote:
| Interesting, but that sounds like it's in the realm of
| tools, not direct handling. Either a normal sized pencil
| that contains that thickness of material, or a microscopic
| pencil that itself needs tools to be manipulated.
| riwsky wrote:
| Glad they found what they were seaking
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Wish the Anunnaki just left notes on how they did it. Joking
| aside, suddenly gold is all over the news, e.g.: "Composite
| material adorned with gold nanoparticles improves infectious
| disease testing"* Gold is also going up in value due to global
| instability. What I am really getting at is - are there any
| "actual" applications at this time? Also, if anyone feels like
| summarizing what I could google - did graphene ever live up to
| the hype, or still too expensive to produce and not quite what it
| was advertised as?
|
| * https://www.mining.com/composite-material-adorned-with-gold-...
| gpm wrote:
| > What I am really getting at is - are there any "actual"
| applications at this time?
|
| Of course not, they literally just figured out how to make it
| in a lab through what sounds like a very labor intensive
| process. They haven't (presumably) figured out how to mass
| manufacture it. They've probably just begun to characterize
| it's actual properties. Engineers haven't had their hands on it
| at all yet.
|
| It's a very cool advance in science IMO! It's not a "product"
| and won't be for awhile. That's normal. Science isn't about
| making products.
| hilsdev wrote:
| Science drives products, though. Very few people would be
| interested in a square inch of refined sand flipping electric
| charges between positive and negative, if it didn't result in
| a yellow circular man eating dots and chasing ghosts.
|
| Graphene shows some interesting properties, perhaps less
| widely marketable than video games, but time will tell. We're
| still before the 8086 on that time scale.
|
| For single atom thick gold? I dare not even speculate.
|
| Though gold grabs extra attention due to its financial role,
| its over hyped in this particular regard. It doesn't degrade
| and the global reserves can easily absorb some scientific
| research. All discussions of inflation and / or monetary
| value tossed completely aside
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You still need to have some delineation. Science drives new
| applications, yes - that's why approximately anyone with
| money is interested in funding it[0]. But it's also not why
| it's done by practitioners. Scientists tend to be
| interested in things _just because_. And then there 's
| rarely a direct connection between foundational research
| and applications. Like, I doubt any of the physicists that
| gave us quantum mechanics, nor any of those who gave them
| the mathematical tools for it, were remotely thinking that
| this will enable Netflix and HDR TVs.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Though FWIW, refined sand flipping electric charges
| was found to be very interesting _not_ because of a yellow
| circle eating white circles, but because it helped with
| designing bombs that eat cities.
| hgomersall wrote:
| It's not going up in value, it's going up in price.
| WatchDog wrote:
| Is single atom thick gold somewhat optically transparent?
| Eji1700 wrote:
| I would suspect it is essentially invisible to the naked eye.
|
| It likely only exists in extremely specific conditions, not
| just like a sheet.
|
| I'm guessing it's somewhat similar to a microscopic layer
| around a material that we never notice.
| eleitl wrote:
| Thin gold layers are green, this looks red if you look at the
| beaker.
|
| There are spectral data available in the original publication
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00518-4
| Retric wrote:
| If I am reading that right, the beaker is filled with lots
| of sheets and clumps of sheets not just a single one. So,
| it's not clear what if anything a single sheet would look
| like.
| sp332 wrote:
| I think gold reflects red light, so it lets greenish light
| through if you use it as a filter.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Definitely yes. Gold is surprisingly transparent for a metal.
| Famously, gold plating is used on astronaut helmet visors, at
| 200 nm thickness - i.e. ~1200 atoms thick.
| twic wrote:
| Is it more transparent than other metals? How transparent is
| a 200 nm film of iron or aluminium?
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Not transparent at all on visible light wavelengths. Light
| transmission in metals obeys the skin effect, which means
| that AC fields (such as the fields in light) do not like to
| penetrate deep into the material, and the skin depth for
| visible light wavelengths in most metals is expressed in
| individual nanometers.
| djtango wrote:
| TIL! Thank you for sharing - love me my chemistry after
| all...
|
| For those who are curious: it fends off harmful EM radiation
|
| https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1997/hm2.html#:~:text=A%20th.
| ...
| manmal wrote:
| It is also used as a coating for window panes, as it's great
| at reflecting infrared radiation (reducing heat loss). My
| father's house has such windows.
| beretguy wrote:
| Are those windows expensive?
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Yes, but mostly because of the manufacturing process
| (requires a vacuum).
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Stealth aircraft also use gold-plated canopies to a)
| contain emissions from the cockpit to the cockpit b)
| reflect incoming radiation of a well-defined surface
| instead of whatever mess is inside the cockpit.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| I mean, matter is mostly empty space...
| IshKebab wrote:
| Only if you really distort the definitions. The "empty space"
| you are thinking about _is_ the matter. You can 't just put
| other stuff there.
|
| There's a similar wrong meme about how you never really
| "touch" anything.
| amelius wrote:
| > There's a similar wrong meme about how you never really
| "touch" anything.
|
| Ok, what is the exact moment you touch something? How close
| do the atoms need to be?
| vortegne wrote:
| When weak interaction starts happening.
| sp332 wrote:
| When does the weak interaction stop happening?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| High energies, about three orders of magnitude higher
| than the LHC produces. (If you squint.)
| z2h-a6n wrote:
| How about this: two objects are touching when the
| interaction forces between the objects are of similar
| magnitude to the interatomic forces within the objects.
| Very generally speaking, this will happen when the
| distance between the objects is about the same as the
| distance between atoms within the objects.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, so I conclude from this that touching is not an exact
| science.
| z2h-a6n wrote:
| To be somewhat pedantic: "touching" is a word. The extent
| to which it is or is not an "exact science" depends on
| what is meant by "touching", and by "exact science". The
| definition I gave of "touching" could be made arbitrarily
| more precise by specifying more precisely the interaction
| forces under consideration, and the level of precision to
| which one should compare their magnitudes. What you mean
| by "exact science" is something I cannot guess at with
| any useful level of precision. Whether or not any of this
| has any bearing on the original topic of discussion is
| another matter.
| temporarely wrote:
| Do this for 'touching fire' to clarify the actual issue.
| IshKebab wrote:
| There isn't an exact moment, any more than there is an
| exact height that is "tall". And yet, tall people exist.
| amelius wrote:
| The tallest person in the world will say that only normal
| and short people exist.
| williamdclt wrote:
| I'd bet very good money that they wouldn't say that, no
| hacker_88 wrote:
| except protons. These are infinitely dense
| dataflow wrote:
| What is the greatest thing we have been able to use graphene for
| so far?
| confused_boner wrote:
| generating AdSense revenue
| kylebenzle wrote:
| Transistors and energy storage probably.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| You can buy "heat spreader" sheets on Digikey that are
| graphene. They're used to help spread heat laterally when you
| don't have much thickness to work with.
| scoobertdoobert wrote:
| Still in the experimental stage really. So I'd say spin
| injection and work towards useful spintronic devices
| deepsun wrote:
| I wonder if somewhere there is a Graphene Store -- collection
| of all product utilizing graphene for it's properties. And it's
| empty.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| A (surprisingly for a newspaper) good article about its lack of
| commercial success:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/13/could-graphe...
|
| > So what happened to the graphene revolution? Why has it not
| transformed our world? Sir Colin Humphreys, professor of
| materials science at Queen Mary University of London, has a
| straightforward answer: "Graphene is still a very promising
| material. The problem has been scaling up its production. That
| is why it has not made the impact that was predicted."
| bdjsiqoocwk wrote:
| That article puts nuclear in a "list of technologies that
| failed to make the grade". So I question everything else in
| the article.
|
| I agree that nuclear is underutilized, but putting it on the
| same list as an electric bike that flopped is.... I don't
| even have words
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Whatever your feelings about nuclear power, you can't
| really argue with the reason they think it has "failed to
| make the grade":
|
| > "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy
| too cheap to meter" - Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the
| United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1954.
| bdjsiqoocwk wrote:
| Disagree. The comment is on price. Price is driven by a
| huge number of factors. It's not as simple as "if nuclear
| is successful, price is low otherwise it's high". One of
| those reasons is that when someone is more available you
| consume more, making price sticky.
|
| Also, consider where that comment comes from. It comes
| from a person who benefits from arguing that nuclear has
| magical economic powers. So you're saying that it's ok to
| say "nuclear failed because it didn't live up to
| ridiculous hype?". No, nonsense. Nuclear has been a huge
| success.
| toss1 wrote:
| The price comment was not about "price is low"; it was
| about it becoming _SO_ plentiful that the overhead in
| metering the cost would exceed the revenue and it could
| be just an on /off subscription
|
| This HAS happened with telecom services, where long-
| distance calls used to even be sometimes only one town
| over, and were charged by the minute. Toll-free (800)-
| numbers were a big deal. Now, the network is so
| successful and calls so numerous that it is literally too
| cheap to meter - you either subscribe or you don't. Per-
| call metering is only the case in some international
| calls.
|
| Nuclear electric power _could_ have become this
| ubiquitous and successful, where the overhead of per-
| kilo-Watt metering outweighed the revenues. It would have
| _merely_ had to scale up several more orders of
| magnitude. _THIS_ was the prediction.
|
| Obviously, although nuclear did have some success this
| did _not_ happen. The costs of commissioning, building,
| and decommissioning individual plants were just too high.
|
| We cannot conflate the actual modest success, producing
| barely 20% of power in the US in 1995[0], with the
| prediction of nuclear succeeding like telecomm.
|
| It did not happen.
|
| I think it could yet happen with some of the new small
| (neighborhood-scale), self-contained, inherently safe
| designs. But that is another prediction.
|
| [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273208/nuclear-
| share-of-...
| bdjsiqoocwk wrote:
| I guess we differ in that you call generating 20% of the
| energy in the USA "not a success" lol
| toss1 wrote:
| Yikes. I specifically said it was a success.
|
| But after 2/3 of a century, nuclear has clearly failed to
| attain the level of success of other technologies, and
| it's success has been capped.
|
| Moreover, nuclear is now on a clear and accelerating
| decline. The peak was 1995, producing 20.1% of US power,
| and it's now fallen from 19.7% to 18.2% in the last two
| years.
|
| I wish nuclear had enjoyed more success; it still may
| with new smaller-scale and inherently safe technologies.
|
| But the current cost profile and construction profile is
| so far out of line with the continually-rapidly-
| declining-costs of competing solar and wind technologies,
| that current nuclear is only falling further behind. To
| build a nuclear plant vs solar or wind requires far more
| capital, has a far longer permitting process and
| construction process before a return on capital can even
| begin, and a far more costly end-of-life phase (notice
| we're not even mentioning the usual highlights of nuclear
| waste disposal, containment, and nuclear material
| proliferation). Nuclear has simply become an unmanageable
| option.
|
| So, considering that it's success was limited, and is now
| in decline with no end in sight, how is it unfair to
| characterize it as "failing to make the grade"?
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| The _United States_ has failed at nuclear power. It 's
| much more successful elsewhere.
| Qwertious wrote:
| Where is nuclear energy _too cheap to meter_?
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Measuring success this way is nonsensical. Is there
| _anything_ that is too cheap to meter? Are other forms of
| energy also unsuccessful until they produce energy too
| cheap too meter? This isn 't serious criteria.
|
| The argument is that this is a silly framing with which
| to judge success. I agree!
|
| I for one am extremely content consuming energy, more
| than half of which is nuclear, followed by hydro. It is
| very successful.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Measuring success by whether the proponents delivers on
| their promises seems _entirely_ fair.
| alephknoll wrote:
| By that criteria, everything is a failure. After all,
| it's the job of the proponent to oversell you on things.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| What sort of life experiences have made you come to this
| conclusion?
|
| Has nobody ever told you "come on, it'll be fun" and
| proven to be right by subsequent events?
| atoav wrote:
| How quick do you expect a material science innovation to land
| in commercial products?
|
| E.g. if the superior quality of material X is proven in one
| study today, it might take at least a decade for material X to
| make it into a first run of a prototype chip series -- maybe --
| if there have been a hundred follow-up studies that showed
| promise as well. Then how long does it take for that prototype
| chip series to feel like a viable alternative to existing,
| trusted solutions for product manufacturers? Most manufacturers
| will rely on the trusted, tested, known thing and only slowly
| will the new tech seep into their portfolio. At least another
| decade till you see significant adoption.
|
| The truth is that what we have in terms of materials is already
| pretty good -- matching e.g. the precision with which we can
| manipulate silicone is not a thing you might just reinvent with
| another material with the snap of a finger. And because what we
| have is pretty good realizing the advantages of a new material
| is not a matter of years, but of decades. And this is a matter
| not only of physics, but of new manufacturing processes, a ton
| of R&D and investment. In some cases this might be easier,
| because the new material can be used with old processes, in
| other cases it might demand entirely different processes that
| haven't been invented yet.
|
| So everybody asking where the revolutionary thing from last
| years material science paper is just shows that they have no
| idea how the things surrounding them came to be. These things
| are moving far slower than you think. But they are moving.
| tjoff wrote:
| Graphene was insanely hyped close to two decades ago though.
| Every other month you'd hear stories of things that could be
| disrupted by it. That was my recollection, though could be
| biased and me misremembering. But it feels like a valid
| question, especially since it has been two decades.
|
| Relevant section from Wikipedia
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene :
|
| > _In 2004, the material was rediscovered, isolated and
| investigated at the University of Manchester,[13][14] by
| Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov. In 2010, Geim and
| Novoselov were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their
| "groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional
| material graphene".[15] High-quality graphene proved to be
| surprisingly easy to isolate.
|
| Graphene has become a valuable and useful nanomaterial due to
| its exceptionally high tensile strength, electrical
| conductivity, transparency, and being the thinnest two-
| dimensional material in the world.[4] The global market for
| graphene was $9 million in 2012,[16] with most of the demand
| from research and development in semiconductor, electronics,
| electric batteries,[17] and composites._
|
| There is also a section about applications that expands on it
| a bit.
| atoav wrote:
| When I say "a decade" that was meant as an example
| timespan. Depending on how complicated the processes turn
| out you could also look at "multiple decades" or in some
| cases also "never".
|
| A problem with today's science world is that the funding is
| competitive to a degree scientists need to "sell" their
| findings with practical applications -- the fact they
| expanded the edge of human knowledge has become worthless.
| So our systemically incentivized-to-sell scientists do just
| that. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it is just
| far fetched bs. But because the edge of current science is
| so precise, so small, so ho, so cold, so fast, so low
| energy, etc. translating even the best of finsings into
| commercially scalable processes has become a _major_
| undertaking and despite unprecedented wealth on the top of
| the society, the ones on top have become averse to risk.
| tjoff wrote:
| I got that, but the question wasn't "where are the mind-
| blowing stuff we should have had by now", but rather -
| what are the most significant uses we've found? In my
| mind also implying that we might have long ways to go for
| the full potential.
|
| Perfectly reasonable question, especially considering
| past projections.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| Yep. They made entire disciplines of nanoscience and nano
| engineering to train grads to do jobs that didn't exist. I
| was one very briefly before seeing the writing on the wall
| and moving to electrical engineering.
| bloopernova wrote:
| I have a heating pad that uses it. It's supposed to penetrate
| deeper, and does seem to help my lower back.
|
| If it's placebo, I'll take it.
| rsktaker wrote:
| > part of the progress is due to serendipidy.
|
| Serendipidy means something like unexpected good fortune, but the
| folktale it comes from (The Three Princes of Serendip - weirdly
| nostalgic, link below) implies a different meaning.
|
| The princes don't roam around with unbelievable luck; rather,
| they are aware of the world around them and consider what it
| implies.
|
| Probably its meaning now has somehow evolved, which is cool. I
| pay a lot of attention to the (current states of) evolutions of
| things. I see it as a kind of refinement process, where valuable
| things persist. So the valuable thing in question is the idea of
| unbelievable luck and the raw material was a broad awareness of
| your surroundings and its implications. Maybe, through
| generations, people came to understand that the latter manifests
| the former and this realization became reflected in the usage of
| the word, resulting in its evolved (current) state.
|
| Consider the sum total of all human reason required to evolve
| this word as the intellect of one person. This superintelligence
| has then made explicit the idea that awareness manifests luck,
| which also makes intuitive sense.
|
| https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Three_Princes...
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| Why goldene and not chrysene?
| shawNell wrote:
| Why chrysene?
| Someone wrote:
| Graphene isn't called carbonene, but, via graphite,
| indirectly derived from the Greek word graphein (to write)
|
| To be consistent, they'd derive from the Greek word for gold,
| which is [1] khrusos (chrysos).
|
| [1] or at least similar to. My greek isn't good, and that's
| an understatement.
| bl0rg wrote:
| Graphite is a pretty common word, and it's easy to make the
| connection between that and what graphene is. Same goes for
| gold and goldene. Not so much for chrysos and chrysene.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| The point of systematic naming is predictability through
| consistency, not appealing to the lowest common
| denominator.
|
| But Sweden isn't exactly known for its stellar
| educational system, so it doesn't surprise me that their
| chemists don't learn Greek.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Ancient Greece wasn't known for its great chemical
| industry.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| Tell that to IUPAC, I don't make the rules.
| temp0826 wrote:
| The most Greek a chemistry student in the states would
| get is from frat parties
| anthk wrote:
| Aurene then, from Latin aurum. Also, in Spanish aureo
| it's still used as 'golden'.
| mock-possum wrote:
| It sounds cooler
| kaetemi wrote:
| Who's that Pokemon?
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Chrysene is already the name of a known hydrocarbon having
| polycyclic aromatic structure, 4 fused rings in a particular
| pattern.
|
| Interestingly, it is a 2-dimensional (planar) compound itself.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Oversimplified TLDR:
|
| They put rolled gold into a Prussian Red solution, waited a
| couple of months and then rinsed it in Palmolive solution?
|
| It is possible they did not obtain the Prussian Red in the good
| old way of cooking blood and bones with potash but ordered it
| from the Internet:
|
| https://www.morphisto.de/en/shop/detail/d/KIT%3A_Atzmittel_n...
|
| On a more serious note, it is surprisingly easy to create mono-
| _molecular_ films. Allegedly Benjamin Franklin made one on Mount
| Pond near Clapham Common in 1774.
| worthless-trash wrote:
| Do you have the corrected link ?
| weinzierl wrote:
| Fixed, thanks!
| mcmoor wrote:
| Reminds me of this Tom Scott video
| https://youtu.be/t60EfnqZKrQ?si=1NfOtkw10GZwE25Z
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Reading about the process, I suspect that this will be
| challenging to do at scale (the general issue with graphene).
| dhosek wrote:
| If it weren't for the captions, I would assume that every single
| photo in this article was stock photography: "Scientists doing
| sciencey things."
| ape4 wrote:
| Maybe the photographer told the scientists - your apparatus
| doesn't look right - here use this pipette and beaker for the
| photo.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| What we can say for sure is that the editor of the article
| chose very generic science-y photos.
|
| Personally I don't think the activities in photos are staged:
| taking the samples out of the oven and the mixing of the
| etching acid are real steps they need to take, just not very
| interesting scientifically speaking.
| oorza wrote:
| But look at their faces, they're having a gas.
| gpm wrote:
| Personally I suspect some of the activities are "staged",
| because it would be weird to have a camera at that angle
| otherwise, but representative of things that actually
| occur.
|
| I'm not really sure anything done in the average lab makes
| for a great picture tbh.
| dhosek wrote:
| Having been the subject of a number of photos for the local
| paper when I was a nerdy high-achieving high school student,
| awkwardly posed "candid" shots are kind of par for the game.
| dorianh wrote:
| I like the second picture where it looks like the professor is
| making sure that the material is indeed one atom thin, but not
| two!
| keybored wrote:
| I didn't get that impression since the characters are
| recurring.
| shagie wrote:
| Repeating characters doesn't mean "not stock". Consider
| https://www.shutterstock.com/g/antonioguillem - you've seen
| some of his work. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-
| photo/disloyal-man-walkin... ... and an entire story of stock
| photos https://www.ladbible.com/community/weird-extra-
| pictures-show...
| dhosek wrote:
| In fact week before last, John Oliver had a segment about
| his favorite recurring model in stock photos on Last Week
| Tonight. Also interesting to note that some well-known
| actors (or at least two) got their start modeling for stock
| photos.
| keybored wrote:
| Well played guys. I mean well actuallied. ;)
| RecycledEle wrote:
| This makes me want to make an Excel worksheet with each element
| on a row, and columns for mono-atomic, 1-d single-atom filaments,
| and 2-d ___ene sheets.
|
| It would be interesting to research (Google) how many of them we
| can reliably make.
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| >""We had created the base material with completely different
| applications in mind. We started with an electrically conductive
| ceramics called titanium silicon carbide, where silicon is in
| thin layers. Then the idea was to coat the material with gold to
| make a contact. But when we exposed the component to high
| temperature, the silicon layer was replaced by gold inside the
| base material," says Lars Hultman.
|
| This phenomenon is called _intercalation_ and what the
| researchers had discovered was titanium gold carbide. "
|
| Hmm, never knew about _Intercalation_ before this... let 's learn
| more about it!:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercalation_(chemistry)
|
| >"By 2023, all commercial Li-ion cells use intercalation
| compounds as active materials"
|
| OK, so _Intercalation_ appears to be deeply related to the
| _principle_ of _energy storage_ (of which one specific subcase is
| Li-ion batteries...)
|
| Also, there's this:
|
| >""If you make a material extremely thin, something extraordinary
| happens - as with graphene. The same thing happens with gold. As
| you know, gold is usually a metal, but if single-atom-layer
| thick, the gold can become a _semiconductor_ instead," says Shun
| Kashiwaya, researcher at the Materials Design Division at
| Linkoping University. "
|
| If this is the case -- then the following would be an interesting
| question for all students of Chemistry, present and future:
|
| _Can all Periodic Table Elements -- be turned into
| semiconductors (specifically transistors) -- if they are only a
| single atom layer thick?_
|
| ?
|
| And, a follow-up set of questions (once that's known):
|
| If any Elements cannot -- then which ones, exactly, cannot, and
| _why_ exactly, can they not be?
|
| ?
|
| ???
|
| (You know -- for all of the Chem majors out there! <g>)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-18 23:02 UTC)