AbeMichelson

Out of all of the methods, I think this is the most promising. Combing the quality of exfoliated, with the ease of manufacture of Cu grown is quite the achievement.

I meant 2D free standing, not monolayer. Unless, of course, the graphene literature stretches the truth (which would not surprise me) about being the first free standing 2D material. 1919, is that Langmuir himself? Katherine Blodgett's niece sent me an old film of Blodgett and Langmuir explaining surface chemistry...it's really cool. I used to have the same attitude about computational chemistry, but a colleague changed my mind a few years back. Computational theory can point the way to interesting experiments, if the collaboration is strong. My point of introducing the topic was to explore possible strategies for making CsF3, not to say it physically exists. A few good links: http://www.ch.imperial.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/?p=11681 http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v5/n10/full/nchem.1754.html?WT.ec_id=NCHEM-201310 The fact that the calculation was deemed worthy to be included in Nature, should lend a little more credence to the idea.

@John If you count theoretical evidence, then that was the point of the post. There is evidence that it could. 2D materials were thought to be impossible before graphene (now we also have MoS2 ). @vampares XeF2 is actually a stable powder that sublimes. It has been used to fluorinate graphene. Also it is a great etchant for Si and is used in lithography because it preferentially etches Si over other materials. @Enthalpy Those are both Organic chemistry terms. If you have a reaction where one atom substitutes another, the substituted atom is the leaving group. Not relevant here because it describes covalent bonding (nonmetal-nonmetal). The double bond is simply 4 electrons shared by two atoms. Also, not relevant. Also, you have supposed that formed at high pressure means only stable at high pressure. There many minerals that were formed by the Earth's crust and meteor impacts that are stable at atmospheric pressure. Look at diamond.

I was thinking about this today, and, lo, so was someone else at some point eventually: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chemical-bonds-inner-shell-electrons/ . Non-valence electron bonding seems like it could be a new frontier of chemistry. The paper the article is based on is calculations. So what experiments could be run to actually make it? High pressure has been suggested. Of course, there is probably not a single safe experiment

If they have done external research as an undergraduate, they will. In fact, many students do summer research programs or internships. I would say that conferences, even regional ones, are much more valuable experiences than university volunteer work. Again, many students do this as well. I think the expectations of this cohort are much higher than previous. There are more of them, so they have to do more to stand out. Grades are no longer the bare minimum, so someone should not treat it that way. Now it is grades + working experience (meaning lab work inside or outside of a university).

Why not get a hot plate? That's what I use for home lab.

When I (briefly) taught, I always told students that competency and friendliness will carry you very far. Competency is obvious. Friendliness is what will win connections wherever you decide to go. I was recruited by acquaintances for 3 out of the four jobs I've had. There is nothing more secure than the inside track on the job hunt and you can only get that through networking. However, I won't lie and say it's not tough out there. I've had several friends who've had issues with employment. One thing I've noticed is that the ones that have trouble did not "mix" at conferences and mainly kept their head down. The sad fact is that funding, jobs, and other opportunities are built around promotion of your research and yourself.

Torx screw sounds like the most elegant solution. Odds are good that they won't have one in their possession. Or you could just lie in wait for the thief and pummel him . Otherwise, why not epoxy the hole, then remove with solvent? Using a spray duster to freeze the epoxy, then hammer + screwdriver to remove.

If you are trying to put the functionalized CNTs into solution, yes. Like dissolves like should work.

How are you functionalizing? It doesn't seem like simply adding ethanol will do it. As far as techniques go, what functional groups are you adding will determine best methods. Hydrogen, COOH, CO, NH2 will be best served with FTIR. Honestly, I like using a second technique, but it is not strictly necessary. However: 1) Raman can show you the disappearance of C=C bond structure (not a great primary method, but it shows the bonds have been broken) 2) XPS will show the presence of O, N, and other elements (but not Hydrogen). It can give some chemical bonding information (usually in relation to C, but not as good as FTIR). It is an expensive technique. An inexpensive alternative is EDX, but it doesn't have the resolution for bonding information. 3) You may get some info from UV-Vis. pi-pi* transitions for C=C bonds will decrease. n-pi* transitions will show for O or N. These will give you another leg for your proof. Really, though, FTIR gives you the best proof positive of functionalization. For small amounts, I'd recommend a MCT detector and ATR or grazing angle reflectance on a gold-coated slide.

Richard Blair at UCF is working on some graphene (as well as some other interesting materials) catalysts by creating defect sites, where the catalysis occurs in activated carbon. Remember that graphene is semimetallic, meaning it has the conductivity of a metal, but not the same band structure. The electrons are really only fully delocalized along one direction, which is why in nanotubes you can have conducting and semiconducting. Interestingly, the electrons travel along /=\ differently than along \=\ . I have not seen anything showing graphene bonding with anti-pi orbitals to create intermediates, which is key to most metallic catalysis. That being said, I wonder if you create experimental conditions to force this bonding (electric field?).

Here's one I stumbled on today! http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140122/srep03812/full/srep03812.html I made one (altered a few things) today and it can detect when I breathe on it. PS Graphite is not disordered graphene, it has ABA stacking. Also, conductivity is axis dependent (not relevant, but a neat fact). Graphene in atmosphere and on a substrate does not have nearly as good of conductivity as free standing in a vacuum. Substrates/adsorbates actually donate/withdraw electrons, changing the conductivity of graphene. Which is why the conductivity of graphite is not as good as graphene. I believe this falls under never have a meeting that takes longer than the experiment would!

I've always liked Douglas Adam's posit that the population of the Universe/sq mile is 0. You take a near infinitely large number and divide it by a smaller number and you get a value approaching zero. I think the same argument can be constructed for knowledge. I always use a personal account for perception and reality. I am color-blind, meaning I have less cones and poor spectral resolution. I have used color-checkers (like grammar and spell check editors) to make sure my presentations make sense. I know that my blue is probably not the same blue as someone else. While this doesn't discredit any empirical evidence of color I arrive at, it definitely gives me poor error bars. I would say on sensory inputs we all have error bars (everyone seems to experience cold differently, e.g.), and we can only say what we know based on those error bars. Take position of a solid object. The first source of error is aberrations in our lenses. This is a larger source than, say, the error due to wavelength spreading. Our do not have (or need) the kind of resolution needed to see the changes in position due to quantum effects. However, conversationally, these do not matter. When I say "the keys are on the table," you know the position of the keys relative to the table. However, if I try to tell a robot through lines of code where the keys are, I need to actually take measurements and not "eyeball" it because precision is required. All of these measurement will be relative to a common origin for the Robot and Table. I do not need the spacial precision of an AFM. I need a spacial precision on the same order that the robot operates; just as I needed the same precision that my wife needed to find the keys. So: 1) Compared to all possible information, we know nothing. 2) The things we know, we don't know everything about. 3) For just about everything we do, 1) and 2) don't matter. (Pragmatism FTW!)

Anything with combustion will have CO2 exhaust, so why bother running a different polluting fuel? Agree Electric. Battery technology needs to be improved, tho.

Have you tried making the cream mix first and then placing it in an v=oven at 110C for about an hour? The water should evaporate out of the salt.