Is graphene really that special?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graphene
AI Thread Summary
Graphene is often touted for its exceptional strength and conductivity, leading to significant hype about its potential to revolutionize technology and materials. While many believe it could eventually surpass silicon in computing and replace traditional building materials, skepticism remains regarding the extent of these claims. Comparisons are drawn to past technological hype, such as the "information superhighway," suggesting that while graphene may be impactful, its actual applications may differ from initial expectations. Concerns about exaggerated media claims, similar to those surrounding the Higgs boson, highlight the need for cautious optimism. Overall, graphene is seen as promising, but its true significance may unfold over time.
Jow
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
So lately (meaning the past few years) I've been hearing a lot about graphene and how it's amazing. It's apparently super strong, has a high conductivity and many other amazing properties. It was the subject for which a nobel prize was won, and it supposedly will change the future. I can't profess to have a great deal of knowledge in any field of science, just a burning curiosity. So my question is this: is graphene all that, or is just another one of those pieces of science that has been over sensationalized and won't come to anything much?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There is no way to tell - it may help if you provided an example of some report you think is over-hyped and we can see.

Graphene is pretty neat though ... so the most likely result is that it will be as special as the (more serious) hype suggests but in a different way. Think of the hype that surrounded the "information superhighway" in the 90's ... the internet has very definitely exceeded the hype but probably not quite in the way the hypers of the day anticipated.

Then there's the other hype - pseudo and junk-science claims that surround new materials or compounds.
Less said the better :(

tldr: "sort of"
 
I get what your saying, but unfortunately I wasn't there for the "information superhighway" hype; I was born in the late 90s.
I don't really have a concrete example. One just reads things when one travels through the wonderful world of the internet. Although I do remember reading somewhere that graphene is likely to completely replace silicon in computers and stuff. Oh and I remember somebody saying that it is super strong and will replace a lot of the building materials we use today. I'm a bit wary of these claims. I generally am wary of any claim that something is revolutionary, especially when it is something scientifc, as I know the media has a tendency to exagerrate (remember the "God Particle"?).
 
Well you can track the news and rumours...
http://www.extremetech.com/tag/graphene

Oh the Higgs Boson - yeah ... and that wasn't the first time anyone worried about a physics experiment destroying everything: eg. in early fusion research -
http://metabunk.org/threads/debunke...-the-earth-during-nuclear-tests-and-cern.692/

I think graphene will have a bigger impact on our everyday lives than the discovery of the Higgs boson though.
But you get the idea - another comparison is how spaceflight was imagined to be life-changing vs how it actually is life-changing.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
71
Views
667
Replies
18
Views
645
Replies
2
Views
104
Back
Top