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.

@ enthalpy: Yes, hydrogen plasma will work (In fact I have done that, even at higher pressures! ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622311004696 )). The paper I was speaking of actually reported hydrogenated graphene (and judging by the Raman Spectra it looks legit) using only the zn+HCl reaction. I couldn't see a mechanism that made sense for it. The UV sounds interesting, not sure if anyone has tried that (from what I recall, graphene's bandgap is in the very deep UV, 190 nm or so...I could be wrong). The current on the graphene is plausable, but would also require intimate contact with the graphene to work. But the original question posed is pretty well answered with "yes, H radicals exist on the surface for short time scales that preclude being an efficient source of radicals for hydrogenation."

@ Enthalpy: yeah, that's what happens during catalysis. I should have known that when I posted this. I'm still wondering how the radicals make it to the graphene. The lifetime would be staggeringly small for a radical in a liquid. Maybe the zinc is in intimate contact with the graphene?

As someone who actually does volunteer work with the needy, I find some of these post are barbaric. I am fairly libertain (not tea party), and I still support food stamps. A few distinctions are missing: 1) Food stamps/food banks are not just for the unemployed. Many working families rely on them. Look at it this way, between the 50s and now we have gone from a single family income nation to a double income nation. As such costs rose to match income levels of the families. So someone with a single income has a much harder time surviving than one with two. I make pretty good money, but my wife doesn't work. For us this means the equivalent of two lower-middle incomes. 2) Food stamps/banks act as a lifeline when someone finds themselves temporarily unemployed. 3) Here's a 'Social Darwin' argument for you: If you had the choice between starvation and committing a crime, which would you choose? Most people would commit the crime (theft, murder, etc.). Every time you add a criminal to society, you increase your chance of being a victim. [A similar libertarian argument for better education: I want my cashier to be able to do simple math]. Now I'm not saying everyone would become criminals or do, but you would decrease the probability. This falls under the heading of a rising tide lifts all ships. 4) The junk food vs healthy food debate misses a key point: junk food stays on the shelf longer. To maximize resources, you must eliminate waste. Food spoilage is a source of waste. If you did not have a lot of money, you would go for the wonderbread that can outlast us over organic free range wheat bread that will last a week. Lack of empathy often leads to lack of knowledge. The people who want to get fresh fruits to the inner city would be better suited in creating products that use preservatives that are more healthy. Liberals tend to feel like they "know better", without thinking of the actual root cause, and come up with an imperfect solution. I feel like their heart is in the right place here, but their mind is not. All of that being said, I think the OP has a really interesting idea. It could work in the inner city, as a sort of subsidized fast food. You would need to mix capitalism and government perfectly. [This is where these thing usually fail]. I'm not sure I would want either of them handle this, to be honest. Maybe I'm cynical. Plus, the people with jobs on food stamps would have no time to do it. Growing food in the city is not easy, but people are working on it. I would like to see a true cost analysis before I would say if it was a good idea or not. Non-profits and Religious organizations do a much better job than government or businesses. If you really want to do it, I'd suggest starting a non profit (contact United Way, they would be able to help) and try it. In closing, if you don't want the government supporting the needy, then you have to start doing it yourself. @ iNOW...ever notice how "War on [fill in the blank]" never seems to work out? @ Lightmeow...where would we get our janitors? [Office Space reference deleted]... also my own personal quote: "Mankind's final government will be anarchy: either we will all learn to work together without the need for compulsion, or there will only be one man left." Also everyone was not left to fend for themselves. An example is Knights of Columbus, founded in the 19th century to help poor Irish families.

I'm skeptical about everything. That's what a scientist is supposed to think. My main problem with a lot of the climate change research is that there is a lot of "bad data" out there. In the 2004(?) report to congress, I remember seeing a table with a report of a 1 degree rise with a margin of error of 4 degrees. Now does this one bad point make all of climate change science wrong? Of course not! However, my general rule is that for every one bad data point you better show me several good ones for me to be convinced. As scientists we have to stop using the word believe/feel, but rather simply supports. We cannot say we are 100% sure, because all an argument against us needs is one bad data point.

What you are describing is the Raman effect. 1 out of a million photons lose or gain energy due to a transfer of kinetic energy. The effect is used to get IR-style information (vibration of bonds) using visible light (laser). And guess what? Raman used the sun as his source in the original Nobel winning experiment in the 20s!

There are some ultrabright LEDs on the market (Luxeon Rebel) that are pretty bright. Why not Halogen lamps (I know they produce tons of heat waste, but they are better at mimicking the sun)? It looks like the peaks in the plankton response do not match up to the peaks in the LED spectra. I doubt it would be a major problem, but it's something to think about. A neat idea for an aquarium would be to use water cooling in lieu of heat sinks since you have all of the major components.

For home hobbyist I would say there are two acceptable methods of making silvered mirrors: 1) electrodeposition 2) Tollen's reagent (ingredients can be bought through Amazon and shouldn't put you on a watch list). It's a fun experiment and worth doing either way. In undergrad we made Christmas ornaments using this and small round bottom flasks. After you make your mirror, be sure to coat the backside (silver side) with some sort of coating (paint, acrylic...), otherwise the silver will tarnish.

Heat = IR. You are describing Near-IR. One question: Does Soylent come in green?

We all learned this: Zn(s) + 2HCl(aq) --> ZnCl2(aq) + H2(g) Recently I saw a paper that claimed hydrogenation of graphene using the reaction between HCl and Zn. Unfortunately, they did no studies on the mechanism of this reaction (just "it worked" instead of "why it worked"). Past studies have shown that H2 or H+ will not hydrogenate graphene. However hydrogen (as well as fluorine) radicals do react with graphene. My question is: Do you form, even for a short time, hydrogen radicals in the reaction with Zn and HCl? I know in gas/solid phase you may see a radical on the surface which meets another to form H2. That mechanism seems less plausible at higher pressures even less for liquid/solid interface. OR Since they used graphene oxide (loaded with CO bonds), did the reaction occur there? I now wonder what is happening on the surface of zinc metal during the acid reaction when that first H+ hits. It would be an interesting surface science question if no one has done it...

I think I get it: What the poster is asking is "how reliant are we on our measurement tools?", "what is the interdependence of science and its measurement tools?" and "can we do science without measurement?" You have to understand that science, in its heart, is an explanation of measurements. As measurement tools and technology improve, so does the science. I love spectroscopy, so I'll use it as an example. Your eyes are a measurement device. You see blue. You see different shades of blue (I, however, am colorblind, so my measurement tool is very imprecise). Using a prism, you can look at how broad the different hues are or how they relate to one another (is one to the left or right to another in position). Upon careful observation and multiple experiments, you find that blue occurs at wavelengths between 450–495 nm. Then you replace your eye with a photodiode. You can now get a better look at the intensity/position of the light. Now you have a spectrum. Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman was able to observe the Raman effect in 1928, but it wasn't able to be used practically until the invention of the laser. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy was not widely used until computers were readily available to do the complex FT calculations quickly. Science is, indeed, limited by its tools. However, new tools are often created in scientific investigations. h does not have to be found in a kiln. If he had ran a current through silicon carbide, he would have seen the same thing. What does this have to do with balancing chemical equations? Take 1 part sulphur, 2 parts saltpetre, and 3 parts charcoal and mix. I image if you eyeball this, you would make a functional gunpowder, just not as good if you measured it with a scale. And nowhere near as good if you balanced the masses using molecular weights. And guess what, you are still using a measurement tool (your eyeball)! I came up with that using chemical equations. There would, however, be no equations without careful measurements in the past. As a throwaway aside on the clone/soul, there is a (kinda) scientific answer to your question. There is no fundamental difference between a clone and an identical twin (outside of time between births). Same genetic material, same gene sequence. So unless identical twins are soulless (hence, the evil twin), clones would also have a soul. QED! You cannot measure a soul, so it is not a science topic. A friend once asked if I believed in ghosts (he and his wife had a disagreement over their existence), to which I replied "I don't know if they exist or not, and unless you can figure out a way to make them power my cell phone, I don't care!" As a religious scientist, I recognize that these things must remain separate. Finally, a "scientific question" actually differs from a regular question. It must be carefully posed to eliminate ambiguity. Ideally, it should either be explainable using current science or testable using experiment. The soul question actually highlights both of these. Souls are not able to be explained using current science knowledge. There are no satisfactory experiment that can be done to "measure" a soul (though many have tried!). You need to tighten your train of thought, think about what you are asking, or the question becomes unanswerable.