/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7405679
Nothing sustainable when it comes to an internet debate.

Just a year of nano material studies in college, which is worthless because I never got a doctorate in it.
Reading well established science journals and reports, which I sadly no long have access to thus are worthless to cite without link history.
A basic reasoning argument using physics principles, as chemical models don't work as well when surface geometry and mechanical effects are dominant, but I can't use because it is only reason based and most people don't get the physics. (most sadly can't seem to understand an allotrope, which is an important part of the discussion)
Books worth of historical similarities to past events and technology, which is dismissed as strictly anecdotal.
And far too many Google searches, which automatically invalidates me because it is Google.

Yep, I got nothing.

>>6114081
What? Why and how would we put this in DNA? We have plenty of simpler and more durable substrates to pick from.
You are talking about graphene transistors right? If you don't mind I would like to know more.

Actually I don't see making small things as that hard as manufacturing plants can justify the costs to use all manner to fancy equipment and we will get better the more we do it. Plus by exploiting natural formation structures we can make them very easily, heck I even made some myself as part of my lab assignment.
My issue is can it be used after it is made. Making a mono atomic wire is easy, keeping it from breaking is hard. Sure you can embed it in alumina or something so it is protected from lots of things, except the electricity that is suppose to carry as doing so defeats the purpose. A power surge of the smallest kind fries it, it may even just be a common static field the induces it too much. While this is a problem for all microprocessor technologies, my point was that it is 5000 times easier to fry a carbon transistor then a silicon transistor. That makes me believe it is not durable enough to be used outside of some specialty applications, even more so then the other things which I already question.

Another matter which is off topic a bit, is the energy needed to make them and how environmentally dangerous they are when not handled properly, which few do sadly. The last thing we need is an asbestos scandal again leading to reactionary legislation that bans a very useful material because some people miss used it. This is not so much and issue with transistors as they are embedded in other stuff rendering them harmless, unless someone does something really stupid.

>>6019954
I don't accept things like that very much anymore given all that I have learned about materials. Maybe a few decades ago before we learned more but now we don't really have excuses given the advancements in our understanding we have gotten really good at spotting them earlier and earlier along with finding ones we never knew of before.
The real problem is safety testing cost a lot of money and companies are not inclined to pay to prove their product is unsafe, nor does the government want to foot the bill.
It is like things are safe until proven beyond all doubt to be dangerous, only then action may be taken and that not even assured.
This is a very bad way to do things. One because it endangers lots of people. And two once people find out (and the public will find out eventually) it breeds distrust, fear, panic and over reactions which can prevent any good from coming from the event.
I mean this is why people fear vaccines is because they put bad stuff in them, people found out and over reacted. This split us apart and now we are wasting resource arguing and covering it up rather then just working to fix the problems on what is a very good tool for public health.
Remember asbestos, beryllium alloy and lead solder? Sure they are dangerous but if used correctly they have a huge benefits to society and we could have worked on making them safer and finding replacements. But what happened? People found out about the lies, panicked and worked hard to banned it.
My fear is newer nano materials like carbon nano tubes will follow the same path as very similar older nano materials like asbestos, hurting millions and ultimately getting banned by some sacred politician and closing a door of possibilities.
The only reason vaccines weren't banned in 1999 when this hit congress was despite how dangerous they are, not having them is much more dangerous. Why not just make them safe, then both sides get what they want?