Phase 5

Staff Writers. (2012, Jan 25). “New form of graphene could prevent electronics from overheating and revolutionize thermal management". UPI Space Daily. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from https://ezproxy.hacc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917719948?accountid=11302

This article talks about researchers from the University of Texas at Austin having developed a new form of grapheme which could prevent electronics such as laptops from overheating. The researchers have developed a new type of graphene that is more effective at managing heat than the original type of grapheme. The researchers talk about their research bringing graphene that much closer to being used to manage heat in not only laptops, but in a skew of other electronic devices which are prone to overheating. Silicon transistors was the original material that was developed to be used as a conductor in electronics, but the need for smaller, faster, and more effective mechanisms exist as technology continues to develop. The new developments within the electronic field have created a lot of pressure for engineers to develop a product that can handle the demands of our advancing field. Researchers have found that graphene is the most promising material at doing so, and even more, the type of graphene that they have developed, they have found to be even more effective at dissipating heat. They also go on to mention that graphene’s use in electronics is continuing to develop and is at the beginning stages of implementation. 

What interests me most about this article is that the researchers actually developed their own form of graphene.” Led by Professor Rodney S. Ruoff in the Cockrell School's Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Materials Science and Engineering Program, the research demonstrates for the first time that a type of graphene created by the University of Texas researchers is 60 percent more effective at managing and transferring heat than normal graphene (Staff Writers, 2012). One thing that this passage taught me was that graphene could be developed and created. I thought that graphene, being carbon, was a naturally occurring element. I don’t really know that that information is helpful to answering anything in particular as it is in informing me about how even more vast the field of carbon based electronics really are. If I were to assume that this research were true, it is significant because this opens up doors to other researchers and companies who want to create better products for their consumers. Instead of waiting for someone else to develop a material that can do what they want, they can begin conducting research and experiments and manipulate the original form of graphene in a way that would be compatible with their products. It seems like there may be no end to what can be created.

Powell, D. (2011, Apr 23). “Scientists study graphene sibling”. Science News, 179, 14-14. Retrieved on March 28, 2013 from https://ezproxy.hacc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863775677?accountid=11302

The article by Powell supports the first article which talks about researchers developing their own form of graphene. I’m very glad that I stumbled across this article, because it completely changed the ideas that I had from prior research. In the abstract, the author introduces graphene by talking about the Russian scientist who won a Nobel Prize in 2010 for developing it in 2004. I now realize that he had to create and alter graphite in order to get graphene. This source backs up what the first source was saying about developing their own form of the compound. This is significant because like I mentioned previously, it opens up endless possibilities for the development and alteration of electronic components.

Phase 4 - Evaluation of Sources

Markoff, John (2013). “Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits”. New York Times. Retrieved on 20 March, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/technology/nanotubes-seen-as-an-alternative-to-silicon-circuits.html?_r=0

Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits

The news article, “Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits” was published by the New York Times online edition on February 19, 2013, so it is very recent. At the end of the article, it is noted that a version of this article appeared in print a day later on February 20, 2013. It is possible that there may have been some revisions before it was published in print. The article covers current information, as silicon chips are working to be replaced by grapheme. Scientists have been working on developing this for over 10 years, and have been recently implementing trials on using grapheme (carbon) within certain electronics. My specific topic of carbon-based electronics can use both current and older sources (within the past 10 years). The older sources can be used to compare the functionality of copper and silicon based electronics to how carbon based electronics function. Research for learning about the reason behind the use of the original materials may be useful as well. The links on the article website are functional, and take the reader back to different sections of the New York Times. There are also advertisements on the side which are functional as well. Clicking on the author’s name takes me to a brief autobiography of the author. This article directly relates to my topic of carbon based electronics. It talks about the soon outdated silicon chips and some studies that have been successful using carbon. The intended audience seems to be engineers, people interested in nanotechnology, those interested in technology, computers, and science. The language is very easy to understand and follow, so the audience does not have to have any sort of technical background to understand it. This is not the first source that I have looked at. I have sifted through various sources and found that this one is in a language that is easy to break down and understand as well as offer some clear concepts that I could learn from. I would feel comfortable using this source, because I think that the information is accurate and it is straight forward and to the point.

The author’s name is John Markoff and he is a senior writer for the New York Times’ science section. He has been writing about technology since 1976, and has been writing for the New York Times since 1988. He has a MA in Sociology, but has spent most of his career as a writer. I think that through his many years of experience as a technology writer, he has gained enough experience to be qualified to write on technology, despite not having credentials in science or technology. The site provides an email address as well as a link to follow him on Twitter. The website ends in .com, so it is a commercial website. The information comes from a group of researchers at Stanford University who were successful in demonstrating an experiment with carbon. The only evidence that this article supports are direct quotes from professors and scientists. The information has not been peer-reviewed. Based on other sources that I have read, I can verify that carbon electronics are being integrated into the electronics field, and silicon and other materials are found to be less effective. The tone that the author uses seems to be unbiased. He is writing in a way of informing his audience of the new and upcoming changes and is not taking sides. I did not find any errors in the article. The purpose of this information is to inform and educate the audience about some new technology advances. I think that the author does a good job with making their intentions clear. I did not find that he was pushing a product or encouraging the audience to take a side, but to be informed that carbon may be a more useful element than what we had thought. I believe that the information found in the article is fact, and it is based off of a study, not simply on what the author feels like writing. The information is objective and he does interview people that explain that some more changes need to happen before carbon is fully implemented, noting that it may not be a perfect substitution at this time. I think that there is definitely an institutional biases by using Stanford University in the study without using any other studies. 

Garaj, S., Hubbard, W., Reina, A., Kong, J., Branton, D., & Golovchenko, J. A. (2010). “Graphene as a subnanometre trans-electrode membrane”. Nature, 467(7312), 190-3. Retrieved on on 20 March, 2013 from doi:10.1038/nature09379

Graphene as a Subnanometre Transelectrode Membrane

The article titled "Graphene as a Subnanometre Transelectrode Membrane" was published in the Nature Journal in September 2010. It is a peer-reviewed article, making it a scholarly source. I did not find that the information was updated or revised. The information that this article covers is current information, which is mostly what my topic is based on. However, older sources (not exceeding more than 10 years) could work as well. Since this is a scholarly journal article, there are no links. The information within this article does relate to my topic. It gives me more of an explanation of why graphene (carbon) is useful by exploring the chemical attributes and the qualities that it maintains when being subjected to various conditions. The intended audience is a more technical audience. It is aimed for people in the chemistry, technology, mechanical/electrical engineering field. I found that the information is fairly advanced and some sections of the article may not be appropriate for a non-scientific research project. I have looked at a variety of sources, although many did exceed 10 pages, so I had to eliminate some based on length. I am unsure whether I would cite this article, only because it is very advanced and technical and I may pull out a few sentences that may prove a point in my research project, but may be out of context in the article itself, because I can't understand what the authors are really trying to convey. 

There are several authors for this article, they are Garaj, S., Hubbard, W., Reina, A., Kong, J., Branton, D., & Golovchenko, J. A. They are physics professors, engineering professors, and molecular and cellular biology professors at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all in Cambridge, MA. The authors are qualified to write on this topic, because it is their profession. There at two Harvard University email addresses given for correspondence. The information comes from a study conducted by the 6 authors with supporting evidence and a methods and results section explaining how the study was carried out as well as the findings that were acquired. The information has been peer reviewed, making it a scholarly article. Due to my limited knowledge, I cannot verify any of the information in this article. This article is difficult to understand because it is not solely to educate the reader, but more to explain the complex study that was conducted by these scientists. The language seems to be informative and not unbiased. The intention is very clear, it is to find results of how graphene reacts on an ionic solution through conducting a study. The information is fact. I found the information to be objective and professional. I did not find any biases in the study.

Comparison of the Two Articles

Both of the articles served their own purpose. The first article was explaining to the public the phasing in of carbon and the phasing out of silicon as well as the potential benefits and downfalls of carbon. It presented itself in a user friendly version to a general audience, but was not written by somebody who has true credentials in the subject matter. The article was only based on one research group from Stanford, which does not leave room for another research project from somebody conducted in the same way, but getting different results. I don't think that you can put all of your faith into one study without seeing it conducted more than once. The second article was more detailed and scientific, almost too scientific to understand. It is a journal article outlining a study that was conducted by 6 professors/scientists at two prestige Universities. The article was also peer reviewed, and I think that that gives it more credibility than the first article. Both of the articles were good articles and I learned something from each of them, but because of research that I have done in the past, I am always more inclined to go with the peer-reviewed journal over anything else. 

 

Phase 3

 Article #1 The Long Game - Anonymous (Macmillan Publishers Ltd.)

Macmillan Publishers Ltd.“The Long Game”. (2011). Nature, 473 (7348), page 419-419. Retrieved from Science & Technology (ProQuest). 7 March, 2013. https://ezproxy.hacc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/870327994?accountid=11302

The article titled “The Long Game” from the Macmillan Publishers talks very briefly about the slow start of carbon-based electronics, more often referred to as graphene electronics. The author details some of the qualities that stand out about graphene such as its strength, thin material, and its flexible properties. They then go on to mention that even though these are great qualities to have, it does not improve performance, as graphene does not perform any better than other materials. There authors elude to the fact that so many scientists have made graphene into such a big deal, but it really is not all it is cracked up to  be, because there are many other materials that are far superior to graphene. It does not work well with digital electronics, which is a big presenting issue, because digital electronics are such a huge part of technology. As far as production goes, scientists have not been able to develop a way to create high-quality carbon sheets in bulk. The obstacle is that what is produced in bulk is inconsistent batch to batch, so scientists have only been able to create small batches, which is not efficient. Graphene does have potential to operate at high speeds within an electrical component, but the speed decreases and changes when it is exposed to the environment. The authors conclude that with time, graphene may be more a more successful product.

Article #2 Graphene for Energy Harvesting/Storage Devices and Printed Electronics - L. Grande, et al.

L. Grande, et al. (2012). “Graphene for Energy Harvesting / Storage Devices and Printed Electronics”. Particuology 10.1 page 1-8. Retrieved from ScienceDirect 7 March, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.partic.2011.12.001

In the article by L. Grande, et al., the authors take a scientific approach on the study of graphene. They attribute the growing interest and advances in graphene to the Nobel Prize that was won in Physics on the topic of graphene in 2010. They discuss some of the positive qualities of graphene and what may set it apart from another material that could be used with electronics. The authors discuss how the product is made and the chemical processes that it must go through in order to be suitable for use. They do make mention to the fact that it is not suitable for production in bulk, and give an explanation as to why this is not possible. The authors go into a very detailed analysis of the different applications of graphene in energy harvesting storage that can be used in solar cells, batteries, fuel cells, and supercapacitors. Graphene is a non-toxic material, making it safe to use as a type of ink. Although it would be beneficial to use within electronics because of the great qualities as well as the factor of speed, it’s most immediate applications are in making lighter parts. This includes car parts, aircraft parts, bicycle frames, etc. The article concludes with a summary of the positive things that graphene has to offer such as its non-toxicity, its wide variety of uses, and the different production styles.

I chose these two sources because I think that they gave a pretty good opposing viewpoint. I got to read about both sides of using carbon-based electronics and some of the implications as well as the benefits. I think that it is interesting how the first article just listed some things that were negative, but the second article also included some of those things, but had evidence to back up why it couldn’t work. For instance, they both mention that sheets of carbon cannot be produced in bulk, which is a setback. The second article explains why it is not possible to produce it in mass quantities, but in a way that it still emphasizes the positive uses of graphene despite some of the implications. The first article was very simple and easy to understand so that I could get a basic runaround of the material. The second article was a scientific study, so it was more difficult to understand, but I feel more informed. I wanted two very different articles, not just in viewpoints, but also in how it was written, and I think I was able to identify two that fit that criteria.

I have been becoming more familiar with the subject, but I know that I still have much to learn. I understand the basic uses of graphene, but not the science behind it. As far as an issue with graphene, I haven’t been able to identify that sticks out to me, but by identifying the pros and cons of the material through these two articles, I can do some more research to identify relevant controversies. The questions that I have are: why does graphene change so much when introduced to the environment? How does carbon play a role in the speed of electron mobility? The next thing that I hope to learn is what the difference is between graphene and the material that is used now within electronics.