Why goldene and not chrysene?
Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
41–50 of 128 posts
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#42[flagged]
Electron microscopes are capable of resolving details that small. Here's a side-on view of what they did. You can see the individual gold atoms. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00518-4/figures/1 And here's a top down view https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00518-4/figures/2 Both of these are from the paper describing their process and results https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00518-4
Holy crap, I want one.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scanning electronic microscopes can see and/or manipulate individual atoms. So, the answer to your question is simple: they took a look from the side and confirmed that it's 1 atom thick. 1. https://education.mrsec.wisc.edu/scanning-tunneling-microsco...
Small correction: Scanning tunneling microscopes can do that. They are basically a very sharp tip scanned across the surface. Scanning electron microscopes, where a beam of electrons is rastered across the surface can not (yet?) resolve atoms.
* cannot resolve atoms on a surface, in transmission mode (STEM) and with the right sample, as in the article it's another story.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#44What is the greatest thing we have been able to use graphene for so far?
Still in the experimental stage really. So I'd say spin injection and work towards useful spintronic devices
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 adva…
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 g…
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.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#46What is the greatest thing we have been able to use graphene for so far?
I wonder if somewhere there is a Graphene Store -- collection of all product utilizing graphene for it's properties. And it's empty.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#47Oversimplified 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_Ätzmittel_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.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scanning electronic microscopes can see and/or manipulate individual atoms. So, the answer to your question is simple: they took a look from the side and confirmed that it's 1 atom thick. 1. https://education.mrsec.wisc.edu/scanning-tunneling-microsco...
Small correction: Scanning tunneling microscopes can do that. They are basically a very sharp tip scanned across the surface. Scanning electron microscopes, where a beam of electrons is rastered across the surface can not (yet?) resolve atoms.
> Small correction: Scanning tunneling microscopes can do that.
Thanks! You're correct.
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#49What is the greatest thing we have been able to use graphene for so far?
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.”
Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold
#50What is the greatest thing we have been able to use graphene for so far?
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.