Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

liu.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#61

Post by tjoff »

atoav wrote: post #57
tjoff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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…

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.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#63

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #49
dataflow wrote: post #22

What 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 sc…

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

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#64

Post by bl0rg »

Someone wrote: post #55
shawNell wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why chrysene?

Graphene isn’t called carbonene, but, via graphite, indirectly derived from the Greek word γράφειν (to write) To be consistent, they’d derive from the Greek word for gold, which is [1] χρυσός (chrysós). [1] or at least similar to. My greek isn’t good, and that’s an understatement.

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.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#65

Post by helsinkiandrew »

bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #63
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sc…

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

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.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#67

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

bl0rg wrote: post #64
Someone wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene isn’t called carbonene, but, via graphite, indirectly derived from the Greek word γράφειν (to write) To be consistent, they’d derive from the Greek word for gold, which is [1] χρυσός (chrysós). [1] or at least similar to. My greek isn’t good, and that’s an understatement.

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.

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.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#68

Post by anthk »

bl0rg wrote: post #64
Someone wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene isn’t called carbonene, but, via graphite, indirectly derived from the Greek word γράφειν (to write) To be consistent, they’d derive from the Greek word for gold, which is [1] χρυσός (chrysós). [1] or at least similar to. My greek isn’t good, and that’s an understatement.

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.

Aurene then, from Latin aurum. Also, in Spanish áureo it's still used as 'golden'.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#69

Post by IshKebab »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #35
WatchDog wrote: post #20

Is single atom thick gold somewhat optically transparent?

I mean, matter is mostly empty space…

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.

Re: Goldene: A single atom layer of gold

#70

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #65
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Post reply on HN