Can I get any macro object of very small thickness such as 10 nm?

In summary, Noel seems to be selling small quantities of graphene flakes, which are large but can be isolated if needed.
  • #1
gggnano
43
3
I know graphene particles are small but how do I work with them separately? If you tell me easy-to-accomplish way for handling a single grain of graphene at home...OK. I was thinking about something like a very thin sheet of graphene, but in quantum measurements they are huge: micrometers and I need the thickness of several atoms: 10 nanometer or so? Thank you!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Can you tell us in more detail what you are wanting to do? And tell us what kind of tools you have available to you and what your background is? That will help us a lot in giving you the best replies. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes gggnano
  • #3
You can get at least laboratory grade gold leaf of similar thickness.

If you think ordinary gold leaf is fragile, this stuff is even worse.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913
  • #4
Do you need access to both sides? Plating it on a substrate is one way to do it.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #5
Gold leaf was my first thought too.
 
  • #7
berkeman said:
Welcome to PF. :smile:

Can you tell us in more detail what you are wanting to do? And tell us what kind of tools you have available to you and what your background is? That will help us a lot in giving you the best replies. Thanks.

Thank you! I'm just trying to explore quantum effects on a macro scale. I'm amateur on a limited budget (not "too limited") yet a small research suggests I can manipulate small droplets/particles via something called optical tweezer...yet tool like that is priced >9000$ on thorlabs.com. Pricey. Not to mention I've no idea if it will work...
 
  • #8
Baluncore said:
I would consider mica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mica#Atomic_force_microscopy

Graphene and hexagonal BN can be separated into thinner sheets using sticky tape.

Interesting. Definitely a cheap and easy way lol but how do I know the separation is of the nanometer magnitude? Let's say I have droplets of nanoparticles and I want to keep them apart...I guess if there is some perverted way for magnetized aluminum powder to be of the same magnetic charge the particles will all repulse each other, maybe not possible...
 
  • #9
gggnano said:
Definitely a cheap and easy way lol but how do I know the separation is of the nanometer magnitude?
The thickness of a mono-molecular sheet of mica will be about 1 nm.
Muskovite unit cell; a = 5.199 Å, b = 9.027 Å, c = 20.106 Å

Ground mica has interesting properties, and is cheap for use in plastering.
Maybe you will need to grind the ground mica further, to a powder.

Below a thickness of about 100nm mica will be optically invisible.
It will be difficult to know if it is still there.
Optical measurements will take you below 1 um, but not 10 nm.
https://nanoscalereslett.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1556-276X-8-305
 
  • #10
If you are going to stay vague about exactly what you are trying to do, you will not get good advice.

for(;;) {
"What about X?"
"No, that won't work because of constraint Y that I didn't tell you about".
}

People will quickly go bored with this game.
 
  • #11
Well from one amateur to another I can give you 14 grams of 5 layer graphene, that's about 2.88nanometer in height/ thickness I think. The flakes are quite large some could be as large as 70 micron in planar dimensions. Easiest thing to do is to get an A4 sheet of paper, an artists brush and a few crumbs of the graphene. Then using the brush just work it into the paper. You wouldn't be able to see the flakes with the naked eye though if you bounce light off the sheet at the right angle then you should see them ok and should be sufficiently isolated to examine individually.

The material is in a plastic test tube and you'll have to pay postage for it.

Other than that I'm happy to give it to you

Regards
Noel.
 
  • #12
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff is somewhat toxic, similar to asbestos, is it not?
 
  • #13
Well you wouldn't care for it in your lungs in about the same way you wouldn't care for graphite in your lungs or for that matter, any kind of carbon. As for toxicity well that's a difficult question and not one I have an answer for as graphene can come in straight and oxidised formats, it can be functionalised in a variety of ways to fulfil differing tasks.

What I'm offering to send is just straight graphene exfoliated from natural graphite, a mask should be worn.
 
  • #14
@Noel39NI: Thank you! But I think it will be easier for me to just order it since I live in the EU/Eastern Europe and such a shipping will cost you money/issues with customs etc.

@DaveC426913: Well, indeed. I think you may need respirator or just be careful...but want to hear a joke? Yesterday I was brainstorming literally as follows: "what will happen if I put Uranium 238 next to a thermite explosion or maybe put the uranium in a chamber so it's like internal combustion engine...then I watched documentary on how "nukes work" - I'm being serious...then again you should at least give me credit of how I've re-invented nukes in no time. The million degrees celcius temperature coming from a small piece of metal was tempting though.

^ Yes, I know Uranium should be enriched and will likely not explode in any case I gave up for 2 reasons: potential problem with police and 2: impossibility to stop radiation in a cheap/lightweight way.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this stuff is somewhat toxic, similar to asbestos, is it not?
Well, it is pure carbon so it is not toxic as such. It it is also not -as far as I am aware- nearly as bad as carbon nanotubes which because of their shape are indeed similar to asbestos (where I work we have specialised labs for handing nanotubes, graphene is used all over the place).
But yes, if you are handling it in powder form you definitely need PPE

Note, however, that it is of course relative. it turns out that there are quite a lot of carbon nanotubes in diesel fumes. Hence, it is not at all obvious that handling graphene (or even small amounts of nanotubes) would be any more dangerous that standing next to a busy road.
 
  • #16
gggnano said:
@DaveC426913: Well, indeed. I think you may need respirator or just be careful...but want to hear a joke? Yesterday I was brainstorming literally as follows: "what will happen if I put Uranium 238 next to a thermite explosion or maybe put the uranium in a chamber so it's like internal combustion engine...then I watched documentary on how "nukes work" - I'm being serious...then again you should at least give me credit of how I've re-invented nukes in no time. The million degrees celcius temperature coming from a small piece of metal was tempting though.

^ Yes, I know Uranium should be enriched and will likely not explode in any case I gave up for 2 reasons: potential problem with police and 2: impossibility to stop radiation in a cheap/lightweight way.
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
  • #17
Thread will remain closed. @gggnano please check your PMs, and be safe.
 

1. What is the smallest thickness possible for a macro object?

The smallest thickness possible for a macro object is typically around 10 nanometers (nm). This is equivalent to 0.00001 millimeters (mm) or 0.00000001 meters (m). However, the exact thickness may vary depending on the material and manufacturing process used.

2. Can any material be made into a macro object with a thickness of 10 nm?

No, not all materials can be made into a macro object with a thickness of 10 nm. Some materials may not have the structural integrity to maintain such a small thickness, while others may not have the necessary properties to be manipulated at the nanoscale. Additionally, certain materials may be more difficult or expensive to produce in such small dimensions.

3. How is a macro object with a thickness of 10 nm created?

A macro object with a thickness of 10 nm is typically created using advanced manufacturing techniques such as nanolithography or molecular self-assembly. These processes involve precise manipulation of individual atoms and molecules to create structures with extremely small dimensions.

4. Is it possible to see a macro object with a thickness of 10 nm with the naked eye?

No, it is not possible to see a macro object with a thickness of 10 nm with the naked eye. This is because the human eye can only perceive objects that are larger than the wavelength of visible light, which is approximately 400-700 nm. Objects with a thickness of 10 nm are much smaller than this and require specialized equipment, such as a scanning electron microscope, to be visualized.

5. What are some potential applications for macro objects with a thickness of 10 nm?

Macro objects with a thickness of 10 nm have a wide range of potential applications in fields such as nanotechnology, biomedicine, and electronics. They can be used to create advanced electronic devices, develop new drug delivery systems, and improve the performance of materials in various industries. Additionally, studying these objects can also provide valuable insights into the behavior of matter at the nanoscale.

Similar threads

Can I move a macro object at a very small distance (around 10 nm)?
    • General Engineering
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 258)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
9K
Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top