/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Graphene has a lot of potential, but isn't being used much in manufacturing.

>>3663

graphene isnt really a material

Modumetal

http://www.modumetal.com/about/

>>3666 (checked)

Is too!

More complex polymers are the future as far as I can tell; the challenges in developing and manufacturing on a respectable scale is almost entirely technological.

Compare that to "why are we using iron steels instead of aluminum and titanium?", where the answer isn't based on our knowledge of metallurgy as much as the fact that electricity is too expensive to justify making aluminum bridges.

>>3663

>>3666

>>3694

graphene is just a type of molecule. it is only one atom thick hence its not comparable to 3dimensional materials like steel or whatever. (meh call it a (nano-)material if you insist) of course there is also a 3dimensional material that is stacked graphene sheets, namely graphite, but its pretty lame. heres another awesome material: single polyethylene chain. its super strong!

(im not saying that single graphene sheets couldnt be useful for nano tech though)

>>3694

>more complex polymers

graphene isnt very complex

>why are we using iron steels instead of aluminium and titanium

unlike titanium, aluminium is rather cheap. but some properties of steels are superior to aluminium. steel is stronger and harder but heavier.

>>3695

Never heard of polyethylene chains, sounds like a cool idea.

As a chemist you also triggered my autism real bad:

'One atom thick' is not '2d'. Using the term 'thick' at all gives it away. You can't dismiss graphene even through hand-waving as an allotrope of elemental carbon because all metals are also elemental allotropes before being alloyed.

Also steel is not used for its strength, but for its price. Bridges made of aluminum, even unalloyed, are vastly superior to steel because of their weight. The reason we don't use aluminum is because Carbothermic reduction doesn't work on aluminum but works perfectly with iron. Titanium is the same story but much worse because it's not as easily mined, despite being very 'common'.

>>3703

>never heard of polyethylene chains, sounds like a cool idea

>as a chemist

kek

if ironic: kek

>>3703

>'One atom thick' is not '2d'.

As a physicist you triggered my autism real bad. A one atom thick sheet

is exactly 2d since it is essentially a crystal which has translation symmetry in only two directions, instead of the usual three.

>>3714

You must not be a very good physicist, then. A single atom, by itself, is a 3D structure: its wavefunction has all three space dimensions in its domain. A collection of multiple such atoms must therefore also be a 3D structure, regardless of the orientations of the atoms.

>>3716

No. It's a 2d structure because it has 2d lattice, regardless of the fact of existence of 3rd dimension in atoms.

>>3703

Aluminum is also pretty swell for aluminothermic reduction, which can be used for metals like Titanium which would turn to the corresponding carbide if you tried carbothermic reduction.

That said, carbides make for good materials in manufacturing because, diamond aside, they are as hard and durable as can be (compare vidia, i.e. wolfram carbide). Palladium, less so Nickel etc are rather rare, and just so happen to be pretty nice for catalysis where you don't need a lot of them (mostly interesting for organic synthesis though) and I'd say that's an important story but probably doesn't belong in here.

Shape memory alloys are rather interesting as an phenomenon, has many uses as far as I can tell yet I don't think they are talked about that much. I don't think alloy research in overall will create anything ground breaking apart from maybe the one usable super conductor alloys. Stuff like titanium is interesting for saving hydrogen but I don't think we are at a stage where we can harness that. As it was already mentioned, most of the really common products are not common because they excel at what they are needed for, but because they are the way cheaper 2nd or 3rd best solution.

>>3719

So if I were to say a sheet of paper occupies three dimensions you'd say "No, It's 2d because it's a sheet not a block"?

What in the fuck am I reading?

How's state college treating you?

>>3790 >>3714

I think you two are arguing about the semantics and do not technically refer to the same thing.

There is only translational symmetry in 2 dimensions, yes. Hence, the crystal sheet is 2d.

But atoms don't start being dots which fill up no space because they aren't bound to anything else. Hence, a one atom thick sheet does still have a volume, and is 3d.

>>3795

I wasn't even the one who defended my assertion, this board needs ids

>>3647

Yeah I agree with you, I was simply pointing out that steel is humanity's favorite because it's easy to make, not because it's ideal. Aluminum and Titanium don't cooperate like iron does.

Yeah I don't see an exciting future for metal alloys.