Phase 6

Pease, Roland (March 2013). “Graphene: Bend and flex for mobile phones”. BBC. Retrieved on 11 April, 2013 from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130306-bend-and-flex-for-mobile-phones/1

Graphene: Bend and flex for mobile phones

In this article, the author, Roland Pease suggests that in the near future, the use of graphene could develop flexible screens on mobile phones, creating a bendy phone that could be wrapped around one’s wrist like a watch, or be bent to fit better into one’s pocket. Pease explores the properties of graphene and just how flexible it can be. He makes mention to the fact that a couple of mobile phone companies have already developed concepts displaying the “bendy phones”. Pease discusses not only the appeal for something visually pleasing, but also for durability since phones with touch screens are more sensitive, it would only make sense for these “bendy phones” to be extremely durable, and with graphene, that is a reality because of the nature of the material. One manufacturer was having difficulty manufacturing quantities larger than a sample size, until researchers from Samsung showed them how to create rolls of it. Sony then built a machine to create rolls of the material. Pease further explores the varied uses of graphene from use in rechargeable batteries, printer ink, electricity, antennaes, and even earpieces. He concludes by talking about the progress that scientists have made with graphene, but also says that it is up to time to tell if graphene will follow through with its promises.

In analyzing this article, I found this article to be very recent, only published a week ago. It did not say whether or not the article was revised or updated. The topic requires a combination of older and newer sources. The links are functional, as it is from a popular British website. The information directly relates to my topic in how graphene is applied as well as some up and coming uses of the material. It does leave my question unanswered, although I have not found any sources that have answered it. My question is why is it taking such a long time for graphene to be more widely used and begin to take over silicon-based electronics? My intended audience is people in the technology field who have the power to do something about getting graphene to be more widely used. They would need to be involved in large corporations such as IBM, Sony, etc. I found the information to be an appropriate level to understand. It was very general, and not a scientific study, so it was easy to follow. I have sifted and read through many sources before I decided to use this one. I would be comfortable citing this source in a research paper because of its credibility. Roland Pease, the writer, is a science writer and broadcaster for BBC. He has 19 years of experience with BBC and prior to that had 6 years as an experienced science journalist. He has a BS in physics and chemistry from Manchester University and holds a PhD in chemical physics from Nottingham University. With his education alone, I believe he is qualified to write about science and technology. The site gives a link for Pease’s twitter account, but nothing more. The information in this article comes from interviews with professors at well-known Universities as well as team leaders from corporations such as IBM and Nokia. The information that Pease provides is supported by evidence through what he is told in his interviews with professionals from well-known corporations. Some of the information that I found in this article, I have seen in other articles, specifically about the applications of graphene and how slow of a process it is to create and implement it. The language in the article is very professional and is unbiased. I did not take notice to any grammatical errors while I was reading the article. I thought that it was edited nicely and was well-written. I think that the purpose of this article is to introduce some very interesting products to consumers to catch their eye. I know that when a product like this comes out, I will be in line to purchase it. I think I may be a targeted audience, because I am very involved in the newest technology craze, and that is who he is aiming for. I also think that it may be political, in mentioning specific well-known cell phone carriers. The intentions as far as the author educating the public on new products was clear, and I think it will encourage people to continue to follow this “trend” of graphene. The information in this article is factual, and there is research to back that up. I found the author’s point of view to focus only on the benefits of graphene, but in the last paragraph of the article he does make mention to a drawback that other studies have mentioned, and that it has taken well over 10 years for the implementations to take place, and it is still being developed. There may be some political biases, but nothing beyond that. I thought that this was a good source and I feel informed and excited for a product like this to come out, so I guess persuasion worked on me.

I had no idea prior to reading this article that graphene could be used in such a way to create a “bendy phone”. I didn’t realize that it had the chemical composition for that, but now I feel like there are so many uses for it that haven’t even been thought of before. This information can be helpful in answering my question, because now I know that graphene is so complex that it isn’t simply creating a recipe, putting it into a device, and expecting it to work. It is actually involved in developing new products, technologies, and ideas, and that all takes time, research, and patience. Assuming that this argument and research is true, this opens up so many doors to researchers, inventors, and those in the technology field. Graphene is the new “magical material”, but what about in 10 more years? I’m sure by then that we will have advanced even more, and maybe instead of “bendy phones”, we will have phones that will text or call whoever and whatever we are thinking.

 Tung, Liam (February, 2013). “Graphene: It won’t replace silicon, but it still has a $1bn future”. ZDNet. Retrieved on 11 April, 2013 from http://www.zdnet.com/graphene-it-wont-replace-silicon-but-it-still-has-a-1bn-future-7000010861/

                 Graphene: It won't replace silicon, but it still has a $1bn future

 In this article, the author, Liam Tung explains why graphene may not completely replace silicon in electronics. Tung interviewed a professor from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, who is the recipient of a large monetary award for funding for graphene development and research. The author explores how successful graphene was with electronics at first, but then explores the reasons as to why it will not completely replace silicon. The professor that was interviewed identified one downfall being that graphene resistors are difficult to turn off, meaning that there is always current flowing, and then said that it will take at least another 10 years to develop a way to fix this issue. The professor, Jari Kinaret, explores the reasons why graphene shouldn’t replace silicon.

This article was published 2 months ago, in February, 2013. The article did not state whether or not it was revised or updated. My topic requires a mix of current and older sources, but I have been focusing on newer sources, because I have found better information with current sources. The links within the article are functional. The information directly relates to my topic, and responds to my question, but does not answer it by providing reasons. The person being interviewed simply says that it could be another 10 years in order to fix a problem with the graphene resistors, but doesn’t provide any specifics as to why it would take that long. The intended audience is other developers, those in the technology field who have been following the newest trends of graphene versus silicon, as well as industrial companies thinking about using graphene in their products. The information was at an appropriate level and not difficult to understand. I have looked at a variety of sources before coming to this one. This article offers a different viewpoint which I want to pay attention to so that I am not only swaying toward one direction. I would not cite this article, because I think it is too political and I think that there may have been a payoff to put this professor’s research out there as a means of recruiting researchers for her business. The author, Liam Tung, is an Australian business technology journalist. He has a bachelor’s degree in cultural studies at Sydney's Macquarie University. He currently works as a freelance technology journalist. I think he is qualified to write on this topic, although most of this article consisted of an interview of a professor talking about her own opinions rather than her research findings. There is a short biography about the author at the bottom of the article and a link is provided to send email through the website, but his own email address is not provided. The URL is a .com, meaning that it is a business. The information in this article comes from an interview with a professor at a University in Sweden who won an award to fund research and study with graphene. The interview does not provide evidence, simply opinion. The information has not been refereed, to my knowledge. Some of the information I have read from other sources, such as graphene is used in tennis rackets and airplane wings because of its lightweight material. The tone is biased and is aimed at the professor. I did see a spelling error here and there in the article. I believe that the purpose of this information is to persuade people, particularly other researchers, to jump on board with this professor’s project and help her out and in return, help them get their names out there by advertising. I think that the information is a mixture of opinion and some facts. The point of view is not objective, it is subjective and is one sided. I noticed a he amount of political bias throughout this article.

            If I am to assume that it is true that it is going to take over 10 years to fix a problem with a transistor that won’t turn off, that I do not think that graphene based electronics will be the next “magical solution”. I think that the figure alone suggests that there are many problems than a transistor issue. This article surprised me, because I have never heard this point of view before. I think that the author did a poor job on providing an evidence based article/interview and that his credibility decreased. This is simply an article based around politics, which is disappointing, because it could have been much better.