Can I get any macro object of very small thickness such as 10 nm?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the challenges of manipulating graphene particles, specifically aiming for a thickness of approximately 10 nanometers. Participants suggest using methods such as sticky tape for separating graphene and mica, with the latter being noted for its mono-molecular thickness of about 1 nm. The conversation also touches on the potential toxicity of graphene and the need for personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling it. Additionally, the use of optical tweezers is mentioned as a costly but effective tool for manipulating small particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of graphene properties and applications
  • Familiarity with atomic force microscopy techniques
  • Knowledge of personal protective equipment (PPE) for handling nanomaterials
  • Basic principles of optical tweezers and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research methods for separating graphene using sticky tape
  • Explore the properties and applications of mica in nanotechnology
  • Investigate the use of optical tweezers for manipulating nanoparticles
  • Learn about safety protocols for handling graphene and other nanomaterials
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for amateur researchers, materials scientists, and anyone interested in nanotechnology, particularly in the manipulation and application of graphene and similar materials.

gggnano
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
I know graphene particles are small but how do I work with them separately? If you tell me easy-to-accomplish way for handling a single grain of graphene at home...OK. I was thinking about something like a very thin sheet of graphene, but in quantum measurements they are huge: micrometers and I need the thickness of several atoms: 10 nanometer or so? Thank you!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Can you tell us in more detail what you are wanting to do? And tell us what kind of tools you have available to you and what your background is? That will help us a lot in giving you the best replies. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gggnano
You can get at least laboratory grade gold leaf of similar thickness.

If you think ordinary gold leaf is fragile, this stuff is even worse.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913
Do you need access to both sides? Plating it on a substrate is one way to do it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE
Gold leaf was my first thought too.
 
berkeman said:
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Can you tell us in more detail what you are wanting to do? And tell us what kind of tools you have available to you and what your background is? That will help us a lot in giving you the best replies. Thanks.

Thank you! I'm just trying to explore quantum effects on a macro scale. I'm amateur on a limited budget (not "too limited") yet a small research suggests I can manipulate small droplets/particles via something called optical tweezer...yet tool like that is priced >9000$ on thorlabs.com. Pricey. Not to mention I've no idea if it will work...
 
Baluncore said:
I would consider mica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica#Atomic_force_microscopy

Graphene and hexagonal BN can be separated into thinner sheets using sticky tape.

Interesting. Definitely a cheap and easy way lol but how do I know the separation is of the nanometer magnitude? Let's say I have droplets of nanoparticles and I want to keep them apart...I guess if there is some perverted way for magnetized aluminum powder to be of the same magnetic charge the particles will all repulse each other, maybe not possible...
 
gggnano said:
Definitely a cheap and easy way lol but how do I know the separation is of the nanometer magnitude?
The thickness of a mono-molecular sheet of mica will be about 1 nm.
Muskovite unit cell; a = 5.199 Å, b = 9.027 Å, c = 20.106 Å

Ground mica has interesting properties, and is cheap for use in plastering.
Maybe you will need to grind the ground mica further, to a powder.

Below a thickness of about 100nm mica will be optically invisible.
It will be difficult to know if it is still there.
Optical measurements will take you below 1 um, but not 10 nm.
https://nanoscalereslett.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1556-276X-8-305
 
  • #10
If you are going to stay vague about exactly what you are trying to do, you will not get good advice.

for(;;) {
"What about X?"
"No, that won't work because of constraint Y that I didn't tell you about".
}

People will quickly go bored with this game.
 
  • #11
Well from one amateur to another I can give you 14 grams of 5 layer graphene, that's about 2.88nanometer in height/ thickness I think. The flakes are quite large some could be as large as 70 micron in planar dimensions. Easiest thing to do is to get an A4 sheet of paper, an artists brush and a few crumbs of the graphene. Then using the brush just work it into the paper. You wouldn't be able to see the flakes with the naked eye though if you bounce light off the sheet at the right angle then you should see them ok and should be sufficiently isolated to examine individually.

The material is in a plastic test tube and you'll have to pay postage for it.

Other than that I'm happy to give it to you

Regards
Noel.
 
  • #12
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff is somewhat toxic, similar to asbestos, is it not?
 
  • #13
Well you wouldn't care for it in your lungs in about the same way you wouldn't care for graphite in your lungs or for that matter, any kind of carbon. As for toxicity well that's a difficult question and not one I have an answer for as graphene can come in straight and oxidised formats, it can be functionalised in a variety of ways to fulfil differing tasks.

What I'm offering to send is just straight graphene exfoliated from natural graphite, a mask should be worn.
 
  • #14
@Noel39NI: Thank you! But I think it will be easier for me to just order it since I live in the EU/Eastern Europe and such a shipping will cost you money/issues with customs etc.

@DaveC426913: Well, indeed. I think you may need respirator or just be careful...but want to hear a joke? Yesterday I was brainstorming literally as follows: "what will happen if I put Uranium 238 next to a thermite explosion or maybe put the uranium in a chamber so it's like internal combustion engine...then I watched documentary on how "nukes work" - I'm being serious...then again you should at least give me credit of how I've re-invented nukes in no time. The million degrees celsius temperature coming from a small piece of metal was tempting though.

^ Yes, I know Uranium should be enriched and will likely not explode in any case I gave up for 2 reasons: potential problem with police and 2: impossibility to stop radiation in a cheap/lightweight way.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff is somewhat toxic, similar to asbestos, is it not?
Well, it is pure carbon so it is not toxic as such. It it is also not -as far as I am aware- nearly as bad as carbon nanotubes which because of their shape are indeed similar to asbestos (where I work we have specialised labs for handing nanotubes, graphene is used all over the place).
But yes, if you are handling it in powder form you definitely need PPE

Note, however, that it is of course relative. it turns out that there are quite a lot of carbon nanotubes in diesel fumes. Hence, it is not at all obvious that handling graphene (or even small amounts of nanotubes) would be any more dangerous that standing next to a busy road.
 
  • #16
gggnano said:
@DaveC426913: Well, indeed. I think you may need respirator or just be careful...but want to hear a joke? Yesterday I was brainstorming literally as follows: "what will happen if I put Uranium 238 next to a thermite explosion or maybe put the uranium in a chamber so it's like internal combustion engine...then I watched documentary on how "nukes work" - I'm being serious...then again you should at least give me credit of how I've re-invented nukes in no time. The million degrees celsius temperature coming from a small piece of metal was tempting though.

^ Yes, I know Uranium should be enriched and will likely not explode in any case I gave up for 2 reasons: potential problem with police and 2: impossibility to stop radiation in a cheap/lightweight way.
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
  • #17
Thread will remain closed. @gggnano please check your PMs, and be safe.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K