graphite circuit board

[Abhay.K]

i thought an idea

graphite is a conductor of electricity .....how about making a circuit by drawing with a graphite pencil

[pwagen]

I can try it at work when I'm rid of my flu, but I doubt graphite has high enough conductivity to work satisfactory.

[dimreepr]

i thought an idea

graphite is a conductor of electricity .....how about making a circuit by drawing with a graphite pencil

 

Graphite in the form of graphene has lots of potential in

this area.

[Externet]

No matter how good the chemical conductor be and easy to trace as with a pencil; circuits the way you envision are just the paths between components.

Components are not meant to be just touching the graphite or other traces, but to bond intimately to them, and as they use metallic leads; securing a reliable connection would be a nightmare.

 

Forget it !

 

In early nineties, I serviced an experimental? PCJr. ? by IBM that had its plastic cabinet internal surfaces painted/sputtered with copper and that paint etched with the components soldered onto it. So there was no fiberglass board; the PC cabinet was the board.

 

Seems it did not provide much for the future as never saw that method used again.

[dimreepr]

No matter how good the chemical conductor be and easy to trace as with a pencil; circuits the way you envision are just the paths between components.

Components are not meant to be just touching the graphite or other traces, but to bond intimately to them, and as they use metallic leads; securing a reliable connection would be a nightmare.

 

Forget it !

 

In early nineties, I serviced an experimental? PCJr. ? by IBM that had its plastic cabinet internal surfaces painted/sputtered with copper and that paint etched with the components soldered onto it. So there was no fiberglass board; the PC cabinet was the board.

 

Seems it did not provide much for the future as never saw that method used again.

 

In terms of the OP I have to agree ‘forget it’ drawing a circuit board with a pencil, given the complexity of today’s technology and what you've outlined, it's a non-starter; however, the potential of graphene is very exciting.

[Enthalpy]

Resistors have been printed of graphite directly on circuit boards. At that time we had hybrid circuits with good resistors (ceramic, thin metal...) but graphite provided cheap inaccurate resistors for digital circuits and accepted low-temperature processes compatible with epoxy.

 

Now that we have SMD resistors, I don't see why we should bother to print resistors.

 

As for conductors, graphite is too bad. Use a metal.

[dimreepr]

As for conductors, graphite is too bad. Use a metal.

 

Think again

http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/story/properties/

 

"Firstly, graphene is great conductor; electrons are able to flow through graphene more easily than through even copper. The electrons travel through the graphene sheet as if they carry no mass, as fast as just one hundredth that of the speed of light."

[Enthalpy]

Graphite is not graphene.

 

Have you seen any significant current conducted in graphene?

 

Incidentally, nobody can produce a printed circuit from graphene.

 

Nor can nanotubes make a rope.

 

Sorry, this is not technology presently. Some day maybe, or maybe not. The uses will probably be ones we don't imagine, and I'd say: not to replace metals.

[dimreepr]

Graphite is not graphene.

 

Graphite is not graphene but graphene is graphite

 

“Graphite, the well known 3-dimensional carbon allotrope found in our pencils, is nothing more

than a stack of several graphene planes.”

 

 

Have you seen any significant current conducted in graphene?

 

 

I have no links with its research; I have, though, seen significant current through graphite.

In the spark erosion machines I once sold, up to 400 amps were used through anodes made of graphite.

 

 

Incidentally, nobody can produce a printed circuit from graphene.

 

Nor can nanotubes make a rope.

 

Sorry, this is not technology presently. Some day maybe, or maybe not. The uses will probably be ones we don't imagine, and I'd say: not to replace metals.

 

 

 

This technology is very much in its infancy, however the following,

 

“Already, Manchester scientists have demonstrated flexible graphene touch-screens,

graphene-based composite materials, graphene smart-windows, ultra-fast graphene

transistors, etc...”

 

Is why I suggested it had very exciting potential.

 

 

 

[Mr Monkeybat]

Graphite is not graphene.

 

Graphite is many pieces of graphene in a disorderly arrangement.

 

 

 

 

Have you seen any significant current conducted in graphene?

Georgia Tech claims 100x copper conductivity for graphene interconnect

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/05/08/2009/46677/georgia-tech-claims-100x-copper-conductivity-for-graphene-interconnect.htm

Incidentally, nobody can produce a printed circuit from graphene.

 

Yes they can http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2067118/Flexible-circuits-wonder-material-graphene-printed-ordinary-ink-jet-machine.html#axzz2Ke4pQdVh

But to answer the OPs question a pencil line is probably made up of flakes to small and disorderly to make a wire. But this is something you could test yourself with a 9v battery an led, some wire and a heavy pencil line just be prepared for your page to catch on fire. Some of the first incandescent bulbs had there filament made out of graphite and I have seen a home made bulb made out of a pencil.

 

Nor can nanotubes make a rope.

 

They can spun into threads.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/145446-rice-creates-first-long-strong-flexible-and-conductive-carbon-nanotube-thread

And such a thread can go through many a standard rope making machine.

 

This can thread can make very compact and poweful electric motors and such cables could increase power line capacity there is very strong incentive for this research to be comercialised.

 

Sorry, this is not technology presently. Some day maybe, or maybe not. The uses will probably be ones we don't imagine, and I'd say: not to replace metals.

 

 

Prototype product and materials with very desirable properties have been produce. The main obstacle has been the means to mass produce them. But great progress and developments have been made in the last few years or even just the last few months, IMHO we very likely see such carbon material used in commercial products both electrical and structural uses by the end of the decade, or even the next few years. The mass production problem is being solved.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/147456-researchers-successfully-grow-defect-free-graphene-commercial-uses-now-in-sight

 

[Enthalpy]

There's a lot of wishful thinking here. Now I know why US researchers are so hyperbolic when communicating results to the public, and newspapers so uncritical: it's because some readers believe them.

 

Graphite is not graphene, graphene is not graphite. Whether you have a single uninterrupted atomic layer or a disordered bunch makes the whole huge difference.

 

Conductivity is not the ability to conduct a significant current.

 

Depositing an ink that contains graphene does not make one sheet of graphene.

 

The demo with alleged "nanotube thread" shows the same mechanical and electrical properties as graphite fibre.

==========================================

 

Some more upstream data sources about what Rice University achieved:

http://news.rice.edu/2013/01/10/new-nanotech-fiber-robust-handling-shocking-performance-2/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6116/182.abstract

some hype less than in general newspapers, but still a bit...

 

10 times more electrically conductive than graphite - which is much worse than a metal.

No single figure about mechanical strength, so bad figures would be a reasonable assumption.

"Graphite fibres are brittle but our nanotube fibre can be bent" => A graphite fibre bends very well because it's thin too.

 

Then you can add all the inaccuracies added by newspapers, like Teijin being an Israeli company...

 

The researchers have improved the process to make a thread out of nanotubes. This is a nice result, and the thread they chose to show looks good. Gratulations.

Everything else is hype.

 

I should like to exhort you to use caution when reading such reports, even in peer-reviewed science papers.

Authors write purposely "graphene conducts well and we've printed with an ink that contains it" but it is your duty not to understand "we've printed a good conductor".

Authors write purposely "nanotubes are strong and we've made threads of it" but you reader shall not understand "we've made strong threads".

[dimreepr]

 

 

There's a lot of wishful thinking here. Now I know why US researchers are so hyperbolic when communicating results to the public, and newspapers so uncritical: it's because some readers believe them.

 

Graphite is not graphene, graphene is not graphite. Whether you have a single uninterrupted atomic layer or a disordered bunch makes the whole huge difference.

 

Conductivity is not the ability to conduct a significant current.

 

Depositing an ink that contains graphene does not make one sheet of graphene.

 

The demo with alleged "nanotube thread" shows the same mechanical and electrical properties as graphite fibre.

 

==========================================

 

Some more upstream data sources about what Rice University achieved:

http://news.rice.edu/2013/01/10/new-nanotech-fiber-robust-handling-shocking-performance-2/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6116/182.abstract

some hype less than in general newspapers, but still a bit...

 

10 times more electrically conductive than graphite - which is much worse than a metal.

No single figure about mechanical strength, so bad figures would be a reasonable assumption.

"Graphite fibres are brittle but our nanotube fibre can be bent" => A graphite fibre bends very well because it's thin too.

 

Then you can add all the inaccuracies added by newspapers, like Teijin being an Israeli company...

 

The researchers have improved the process to make a thread out of nanotubes. This is a nice result, and the thread they chose to show looks good. Gratulations.

Everything else is hype.

 

I should like to exhort you to use caution when reading such reports, even in peer-reviewed science papers.

Authors write purposely "graphene conducts well and we've printed with an ink that contains it" but it is your duty not to understand "we've printed a good conductor".

Authors write purposely "nanotubes are strong and we've made threads of it" but you reader shall not understand "we've made strong threads".

 

In suggesting that this technology has very exciting potential is not hyperbole, given that my links are to Manchester University; the home of graphene and a Nobel Prize, in its research, for Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov. I think it’s perhaps you that’s suggesting litotes as to its potential. Also please extend me the same courtesy that I did you and answer me directly, rather than a mixed answer that neither fully answers me or ‘Mr Monkeybat’ appropriately.

Edited February 12, 2013 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

This "Graphite in the form of graphene has lots of potential in this area."

only makes slightly more sense than saying that graphite in the form of diamond has potential for making jewellery.

[dimreepr]

This "Graphite in the form of graphene has lots of potential in this area."

only makes slightly more sense than saying that graphite in the form of diamond has potential for making jewellery.

 

Agreed, graphite = graphene is as semantic as saying graphite = diamond, but as you say, makes slightly more sense; it was nevertheless a very bad start to this thread. Even so it doesn’t change the potential of graphene.

[Externet]

Not graphite; not graphene; not new either :

 

---->http://www.bareconductive.com/

[John Cuthber]

Agreed, graphite = graphene is as semantic as saying graphite = diamond, but as you say, makes slightly more sense; it was nevertheless a very bad start to this thread. Even so it doesn’t change the potential of graphene.

And if the thread was was about graphene then that would be relevant.

[dimreepr]

And if the thread was was about graphene then that would be relevant.

 

Yup my bad, externet’s post only exaggerates my mistake, and subsequent irrelevant arguments, apologies Abhay.K.

 

 

 

[khlor]

it seems interesting when you say about graphene but graphite don't seems a good idea, graphite can be used to make resistors, but circuit board, well I really don't know.

[elementcollector1]

Sigh... And one search on YouTube would have saved you all the trouble:

There you go. Not nearly as good as a decent circuitboard, but the point is it works.

[AbeMichelson]

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.

Sigh... And one search on YouTube would have saved you all the trouble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwKQ9Idq9FM

There you go. Not nearly as good as a decent circuitboard, but the point is it works.

I believe this falls under never have a meeting that takes longer than the experiment would!

Edited January 24, 2014 by AbeMichelson