If glass and plastic didn't exist, how fast could progress in biology have gone in the past 100 years? Is there an equivalently useful new material we don't have yet?
-
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @LauraDeming
Why graphene and not carbon nanotubes, q-carbon, carbon nanothreads?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mchapiro @LauraDeming
lexical parsimony: you could call many of those forms forms of graphene basically (imho)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @LauraDeming
Well your opinion would be wrong. Not only is your suggestion unlikely, it does not meet the criteria of being similar to a broad class of materials.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mchapiro @LauraDeming
you’re saying this isn’t a form of graphene?pic.twitter.com/hQCN8jhlSn
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanielleFong @LauraDeming
If that is, this is.pic.twitter.com/EicepqhXn3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @LauraDeming
Why? Those are sheets of graphene. If anything it's arguably much closer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Anyway, you said many, and only 1 of the 3 I listed is comprised of graphene. Q-carbon is amorphous and carbon nanothreads have a diamond-like structure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
fair. didn’t think they formed the weight of your suggestion but i’ve probably misjudged it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
