The next big thing on the horizon poised to change the world. Graphene | INFJ Forum

The next big thing on the horizon poised to change the world. Graphene

Eventhorizon

Permanently relocated
Banned
May 19, 2013
16,534
10,379
2,187
MBTI
INTJ
[video]http://video.foxnews.com/v/3507168686001/scientists-whip-up-wonder-material-with-blender-detergent/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips[/video]

Its sooo much more than whats here. It will give us elevators to space, new air and space ships. Paper thin phones, roll-able computers and computer screens....

Sit back and watch the world change.
 
Last edited:
"Ink-jet printed batteries..." WOW.

It will give us elevators to space, new air and space ships.

Care to expand on this? I'm pretty interested but I'm not sure of the logistics. Also, actually harder than diamond - mass quantity and cheap to use, could lead to new armors and other military implications.
 
"Ink-jet printed batteries..." WOW.



Care to expand on this? I'm pretty interested but I'm not sure of the logistics. Also, actually harder than diamond - mass quantity and cheap to use, could lead to new armors and other military implications.

Thinner, lighter, stronger material.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/miracle-material-graphene-has-dangerous-edge-9312966.html

[h=1]Miracle material graphene has dangerous edge[/h]
[h=3]The wonder stuff could damage the environment if it is let loose, experts have warned[/h]
Graphene has been hailed as a miracle material that many believe could revolutionise many industries, but it might have more dangerous side effects as it spreads into the environment, experts say.

Researchers have found that the graphene oxide, created when the material is exposed to air, moves easily through bodies of water. Researchers worry could lead to it easily finding its way into human bodies.
That is worrying because the effects of graphene in human bodies are unknown. One recent study at Brown University found that jagged edges of the material can easily pierce cell membranes, allowing it to enter cells and disrupt their functions.
“The situation today is similar to where we were with chemicals and pharmaceuticals 30 years ago,” said Jacob D Lanphere, a graduate student who worked on the new paper studying graphene in water. “We just don’t know much about what happens when these engineered nanomaterials get into the ground or water.”
Graphene is expected to be used for new inventions including super-fast computers, taking the place of the non-toxic silicon. The very strong and thin material is made by slicing off atom-thick layers of carbon in a lab, but can also be made using a kitchen blender.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/miracle-material-graphene-has-dangerous-edge-9312966.html

[h=1]Miracle material graphene has dangerous edge[/h]
[h=3]The wonder stuff could damage the environment if it is let loose, experts have warned[/h]
Graphene has been hailed as a miracle material that many believe could revolutionise many industries, but it might have more dangerous side effects as it spreads into the environment, experts say.

Researchers have found that the graphene oxide, created when the material is exposed to air, moves easily through bodies of water. Researchers worry could lead to it easily finding its way into human bodies.
That is worrying because the effects of graphene in human bodies are unknown. One recent study at Brown University found that jagged edges of the material can easily pierce cell membranes, allowing it to enter cells and disrupt their functions.
“The situation today is similar to where we were with chemicals and pharmaceuticals 30 years ago,” said Jacob D Lanphere, a graduate student who worked on the new paper studying graphene in water. “We just don’t know much about what happens when these engineered nanomaterials get into the ground or water.”
Graphene is expected to be used for new inventions including super-fast computers, taking the place of the non-toxic silicon. The very strong and thin material is made by slicing off atom-thick layers of carbon in a lab, but can also be made using a kitchen blender.

Interesting...
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/miracle-material-graphene-has-dangerous-edge-9312966.html

Miracle material graphene has dangerous edge


The wonder stuff could damage the environment if it is let loose, experts have warned


Graphene has been hailed as a miracle material that many believe could revolutionise many industries, but it might have more dangerous side effects as it spreads into the environment, experts say.

Researchers have found that the graphene oxide, created when the material is exposed to air, moves easily through bodies of water. Researchers worry could lead to it easily finding its way into human bodies.
That is worrying because the effects of graphene in human bodies are unknown. One recent study at Brown University found that jagged edges of the material can easily pierce cell membranes, allowing it to enter cells and disrupt their functions.
“The situation today is similar to where we were with chemicals and pharmaceuticals 30 years ago,” said Jacob D Lanphere, a graduate student who worked on the new paper studying graphene in water. “We just don’t know much about what happens when these engineered nanomaterials get into the ground or water.”
Graphene is expected to be used for new inventions including super-fast computers, taking the place of the non-toxic silicon. The very strong and thin material is made by slicing off atom-thick layers of carbon in a lab, but can also be made using a kitchen blender.

Graphine can either be "built", or extracted from graphite. Given that I consumed vast amounts of graphite in primary school, with no discernible ill effect, I am not going to worry about graphine dangers.



To OP. I hope we get this cool tech faster than the micro-jet-turbine generators we were promised for phones years ago.
 
Graphine can either be "built", or extracted from graphite. Given that I consumed vast amounts of graphite in primary school, with no discernible ill effect, I am not going to worry about graphine dangers.



To OP. I hope we get this cool tech faster than the micro-jet-turbine generators we were promised for phones years ago.

Experts are warning that the new tech can pollute the biosphere; i think that it shouldn'y be rolled out until we know for sure otherwise countless people will be poisoned by big industry without having had any say in whether or not they should live in a posionous environment

No one has a right to poison others especially not for profit or so that their mobile phone weighs less in their pocket
 
[h=1]Jagged graphene can slice into cell membranes[/h]http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/07/graphene

A collaboration of biologists, engineers, and material scientists at Brown University has found that jagged edges of graphene can easily pierce cell membranes, allowing graphene to enter the cell and disrupt normal function. Understanding the mechanical forces of nanotoxicity should help engineers design safer materials at the nanoscale.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Researchers from Brown University have shown how tiny graphene microsheets — ultra-thin materials with a number of commercial applications — could be big trouble for human cells.
The research shows that sharp corners and jagged protrusions along the edges of graphene sheets can easily pierce cell membranes. After the membrane is pierced, an entire graphene sheet can be pulled inside the cell where it may disrupt normal function. The new insight may be helpful in finding ways to minimize the potential toxicity of graphene, said Agnes Kane, chair of the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Brown and one of the study’s authors.
“At a fundamental level, we want understand the features of these materials that are responsible for how they interact with cells,” Kane said. “If there’s some feature that is responsible for its toxicity, then maybe the engineers can engineer it out.”
The findings were published online July 9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Discovered about a decade ago, graphene is a sheet of carbon just one atom thick. It is incredibly strong despite being so thin and has remarkable electronic, mechanical, and photonic properties. Commercial applications in small electronic devices, solar cells, batteries and even medical devices are just around the corner. But not much is known about what effect these materials might have if they get inside the body either during the manufacturing process or during a product’s lifecycle.
“These materials can be inhaled unintentionally, or they may be intentionally injected or implanted as components of new biomedical technologies,” said Robert Hurt, professor of engineering and one of the study’s authors. “So we want to understand how they interact with cells once inside the body.”
These latest findings come from an ongoing collaboration between biologists, engineers, and material scientists at Brown aimed at understanding the toxic potential of a wide variety of nanomaterials. Their work on graphene started with some seemingly contradictory findings.
Preliminary research by Kane’s biology group had shown that graphene sheets can indeed enter cells, but it wasn’t clear how they got there. Huajian Gao, professor of engineering, tried to explain those results using powerful computer simulations, but he ran into a problem. His models, which simulate interactions between graphene and cell membranes at the molecular level, suggested that it would be quite rare for a microsheet to pierce a cell. The energy barrier required for a sheet to cut the membrane was simply too high, even when the sheet hit edge first.
The problem turned out to be that those initial simulations assumed a perfectly square piece of graphene. In reality, graphene sheets are rarely so pristine. When graphene is exfoliated, or peeled away from thicker chunks of graphite, the sheets come off in oddly shaped flakes with jagged protrusions called asperities. When Gao reran his simulations with asperities included, the sheets were able to pierce the membrane much more easily.
Annette von dem Bussche, assistant professor of pathology and laboratory medicine, was able to verify the model experimentally. She placed human lung, skin and immune cells in Petri dishes along with graphene microsheets. Electron microscope images confirmed that graphene entered the cells starting at rough edges and corners. The experiments showed that even fairly large graphene sheets of up to 10 micrometers could be completely internalized by a cell.
“The engineers and the material scientists can analyze and describe these materials in great detail,” Kane said. “That allows us to better interpret the biological impacts of these materials. It’s really a wonderful collaboration.”
From here, the researchers will look in more detail into what happens once a graphene sheet gets inside the cell. But Kane says this initial study provides an important start in understanding the potential for graphene toxicity.
“This is about the safe design of nanomaterials,” she said. “They’re man-made materials, so we should be able to be clever and make them safer.”
Other contributors to the study were Brown graduate students Yinfeng Li (now a professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University), Hongyan Yuan, and Megan Creighton. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants CMMI-1028530 and CBET-1132446) and the Superfund Research Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant P42 ES013660).
 
  • Like
Reactions: say what
Experts are warning that the new tech can pollute the biosphere; i think that it shouldn'y be rolled out until we know for sure otherwise countless people will be poisoned by big industry without having had any say in whether or not they should live in a posionous environment

No one has a right to poison others especially not for profit or so that their mobile phone weighs less in their pocket

I don't think there is a case to claim that this abundant, naturally occurring substance is poisonous, irrespective of hysteria.

@muir Powdered glass and its smallest microscopic fragments can do the same thing - enter the body and pierce cell membranes. We don't start running around frantically trying to ensure that all glass is disposed of carefully, as a poisonous substance, do we?
 
Last edited:
That's awesome! Thanks for sharing. :)
 
I don't think there is a case to claim that this abundant, naturally occurring substance is poisonous, irrespective of hysteria.

@muir Powdered glass and its smallest microscopic fragments can do the same thing - enter the body and pierce cell membranes. We don't start running around frantically trying to ensure that all glass is disposed of carefully, as a poisonous substance, do we?

They aren't talking about that

The stuff the OP is talking about is not ground up pencil lead it is a nanotechnology

Click on the links in the article i posted to see what the scientists are finding in their studies
 
Well, they did not do large studies on plastic before it became a "new world" tech. Graphene will undoubtedly be a benefit to hindrance test.

I personally see a "next" step in humanity where steel was one before. Graphene is not only the physical building material of the future, it is so much more. Imagine a building structuraly built from it and its skeleton not only acting as the support, but also the power source.

I really want to see this before I die.
 
Well, they did not do large studies on plastic before it became a "new world" tech. Graphene will undoubtedly be a benefit to hindrance test.

I personally see a "next" step in humanity where steel was one before. Graphene is not only the physical building material of the future, it is so much more. Imagine a building structuraly built from it and its skeleton not only acting as the support, but also the power source.

I really want to see this before I die.

You won't see it if you die of graphene poisoning first
 
ptqgawmgynur3jk4ecb3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
You won't see it if you die of graphene poisoning first

Why are you so convinced its poisonous. Your earlier point was that we don't know what happens when it enters the human body. Earlier also you were quick to dismiss Flavus Aquila's point "@muir Powdered glass and its smallest microscopic fragments can do the same thing - enter the body and pierce cell membranes. We don't start running around frantically trying to ensure that all glass is disposed of carefully, as a poisonous substance, do we?" as false, however he is exactly right. This is exactly the concern you pointed out. The jagged edges being able to enter cells because it is uniquely sharp. It may be true that Flavus exaggerated a bit when he related graphene to graphite, as they are very much different, however it is true that the material is not chemically toxic as to say poisonous as graphene is technically still graphite just engineered in a special way. It is dangerous in the way that fiberglass should not be inhaled or dust glass.
 
Why are you so convinced its poisonous. Your earlier point was that we don't know what happens when it enters the human body. Earlier also you were quick to dismiss Flavus Aquila's point "@muir Powdered glass and its smallest microscopic fragments can do the same thing - enter the body and pierce cell membranes. We don't start running around frantically trying to ensure that all glass is disposed of carefully, as a poisonous substance, do we?" as false, however he is exactly right. This is exactly the concern you pointed out. The jagged edges being able to enter cells because it is uniquely sharp. It may be true that Flavus exaggerated a bit when he related graphene to graphite, as they are very much different, however it is true that the material is not chemically toxic as to say poisonous as graphene is technically still graphite just engineered in a special way. It is dangerous in the way that fiberglass should not be inhaled or dust glass.

No its the size...these are NANOPARTICLES

nanotechnology is being created which is so small it will pass right through your skin. There are sprays of nanotechnology which will just pass right through your skin and into your system

People seem to be cranking out nanotechnology left right and centre without stopping to think about what the results of that will be

From my first post:

''Researchers have found that the graphene oxide, created when the material is exposed to air, moves easily through bodies of water. ''
 
No its the size...these are NANOPARTICLES

nanotechnology is being created which is so small it will pass right through your skin. There are sprays of nanotechnology which will just pass right through your skin and into your system

People seem to be cranking out nanotechnology left right and centre without stopping to think about what the results of that will be

From my first post:

''Researchers have found that the graphene oxide, created when the material is exposed to air, moves easily through bodies of water. ''

Believe me when I say I am very aware of it being nanoparticles. However, you assume its poisonous when studies have not been done in that way. When someone points out the difference between poisonous chemically and dangerous because of the more physical properties, you dispute them even though you said much the same thing earlier. You seem to think that everyone is arguing with you or everyone thinks your wrong. Or even worse that you think everyone's wrong and your the only one right and you think you need to educate people about what you think is the truth. I hope not the latter as that would be...unfortunate..., but as for the former, you don't need to think like that. I don't mean this to be insulting so please do not take it in such a way, I just want to try to get you to see what it seems like you are trying to do and it is sometimes unnecessary.

Back on point, even on the intent of your logic, you are not necessarily correct. You see, scientists are divided on whether or not nanoparticles CAN go right through the skin as you suggest. Here is an actual scientific periodical, peer reviewed, that has its evidence listed, that shows the opposite of what you suggest.
Here is the abstract:

The use of nanoparticles as formulation components of topical drug delivery systems for the skin has been widely investigated in the literature. Because of the conflicting conclusions resulting from these studies concerning the ultimate disposition of the nanoparticles employed, the research presented in this paper has been designed to evaluate objectively the fate of such structures when administered to mammalian skin. Confocal microscopy images of skin exposed to nanoparticles have therefore been assessed by quantitative statistical analysis. Sebum on the skin surface was naturally fluorescent and clearly defined the outermost part of the cutaneous barrier. Fluorescent polystyrene nanoparticles applied in aqueous suspension could infiltrate only the stratum disjunctum, i.e., skin layers in the final stages of desquamation. This minimal uptake was independent of contact time (up to 16 h) and of nanoparticle size tested (20–200 nm). When skin barrier function was modestly compromised, the nanoparticles remained incapable of penetration beyond the most superficial layers, corresponding to a depth of 2–3 μm, of the stratum corneum (the outermost, 15–20 μm skin layer). Overall, these results demonstrate objectively and semi-quantitatively that nanoparticles contacting intact, and even partially damaged, skin cannot penetrate beyond the superficial layers of the barrier, and are highly unlikely, therefore, to reach the viable cells of the epidermis or beyond. It follows that nanoparticulate-based, topical delivery systems may prove useful as skin surface reservoirs from which controlled drug release over time may be achieved.

Website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016836591200524X

As you can see, it is NOT clear as to the truth of the matter. More research needs to be done. This is an example of another jump in your logic. Its called confirmation bias. You only look at the articles that agree with your perspective.

Your statement, "People seem to be cranking out nanotechnology left right and centre without stopping to think about what the results of that will be" is another example of your being good with words.
 
Last edited:
I also just read the abstract that you posted and would like to point out this specific statement.
"Transport results confirmed that in groundwater, GONPs are less stable and are more likely to be removed during transport in porous media."
This would seem to imply that the graphene can be filtered out (in this case partially with porous media, probably a limestone), so with some more study and some applied technology, we might be able to fully filter out the material. This of course would only be applicable to our water supply and not to environmental contamination, however that is not to say there is no solution to environmental contaminations. There could be similar methodologies to that used in oil spills (doesn't seem likely to me) or perhaps chemical treatments. However this is to assume that graphene would become an environmental contaminant which is not necessarily a guarantee. As for how likely that could be, that is pure speculation.
 
Believe me when I say I am very aware of it being nanoparticles. However, you assume its poisonous when studies have not been done in that way. When someone points out the difference between poisonous chemically and dangerous because of the more physical properties, you dispute them even though you said much the same thing earlier. You seem to think that everyone is arguing with you or everyone thinks your wrong. Or even worse that you think everyone's wrong and your the only one right and you think you need to educate people about what you think is the truth. I hope not the latter as that would be...unfortunate..., but as for the former, you don't need to think like that. I don't mean this to be insulting so please do not take it in such a way, I just want to try to get you to see what it seems like you are trying to do and it is sometimes unnecessary.

Back on point, even on the intent of your logic, you are not necessarily correct. You see, scientists are divided on whether or not nanoparticles CAN go right through the skin as you suggest. Here is an actual scientific periodical, peer reviewed, that has its evidence listed, that shows the opposite of what you suggest.
Here is the abstract:

The use of nanoparticles as formulation components of topical drug delivery systems for the skin has been widely investigated in the literature. Because of the conflicting conclusions resulting from these studies concerning the ultimate disposition of the nanoparticles employed, the research presented in this paper has been designed to evaluate objectively the fate of such structures when administered to mammalian skin. Confocal microscopy images of skin exposed to nanoparticles have therefore been assessed by quantitative statistical analysis. Sebum on the skin surface was naturally fluorescent and clearly defined the outermost part of the cutaneous barrier. Fluorescent polystyrene nanoparticles applied in aqueous suspension could infiltrate only the stratum disjunctum, i.e., skin layers in the final stages of desquamation. This minimal uptake was independent of contact time (up to 16 h) and of nanoparticle size tested (20–200 nm). When skin barrier function was modestly compromised, the nanoparticles remained incapable of penetration beyond the most superficial layers, corresponding to a depth of 2–3 μm, of the stratum corneum (the outermost, 15–20 μm skin layer). Overall, these results demonstrate objectively and semi-quantitatively that nanoparticles contacting intact, and even partially damaged, skin cannot penetrate beyond the superficial layers of the barrier, and are highly unlikely, therefore, to reach the viable cells of the epidermis or beyond. It follows that nanoparticulate-based, topical delivery systems may prove useful as skin surface reservoirs from which controlled drug release over time may be achieved.

Website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016836591200524X

As you can see, it is NOT clear as to the truth of the matter. More research needs to be done. This is an example of another jump in your logic. Its called confirmation bias. You only look at the articles that agree with your perspective.

Your statement, "People seem to be cranking out nanotechnology left right and centre without stopping to think about what the results of that will be" is another example of your being good with words.

Nonotechnology CAN go through the skin

here is a talk from the pentagon on weaponised nanotechnology designed to be fired through a spray onto the intended victim so that it can be absorbed through their skin before targetting parts of their brain

[video=youtube;zzgI_JPeRWI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzgI_JPeRWI[/video]

Please don't take this as an insult but you seem very naive
 
Last edited:
I also just read the abstract that you posted and would like to point out this specific statement.
"Transport results confirmed that in groundwater, GONPs are less stable and are more likely to be removed during transport in porous media."
This would seem to imply that the graphene can be filtered out (in this case partially with porous media, probably a limestone), so with some more study and some applied technology, we might be able to fully filter out the material. This of course would only be applicable to our water supply and not to environmental contamination, however that is not to say there is no solution to environmental contaminations. There could be similar methodologies to that used in oil spills (doesn't seem likely to me) or perhaps chemical treatments. However this is to assume that graphene would become an environmental contaminant which is not necessarily a guarantee. As for how likely that could be, that is pure speculation.

The scientists have identified its danger as a contaminant

The big money interests don't care about safety they care about profits; you mentioned oil spills and that's a good example of this profit orinetated approach causing problems. I believe there has just been an oil spill on the streets of LA

There have been many chemicals used eg DDT which were later withdrawn after conclusive damage was caused

A famous example would be the carcinogenic nature of cigarettes which was denied for decades by the big tobacco companies
 
Last edited: