Industrial scale production of graphene
I am pleased to announce that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has just granted a patent for my invention. After years of study and research, Canada Graphene can now develop industrial scale production of graphene.
Below you will find a concise account of my invention.
-Mr. H. Famenini
A brief explanation of the invention: The invention/method comprises three simple steps:
1. Producing a compact monolayer (a Langmuir monolayer).
2. Mounting/transferring the said monolayer onto a substrate.
3. Controlled carbonization (burning) of the said monolayer.
It is during step 3 (the controlled carbonization) that the conversion of the Langmuir monolayer to a sheet of graphene takes place.
A couple of notes about the video:
- The compact monolayer is produced by dropping a tiny droplet of a suitable organic material (represented by a tiny droplet of olive oil) onto the surface of a body of water.
- The microscopic-sized patterns are produced by a low-intensity laser beam. The laser beam evaporates the “unwanted” portions of the monolayer, leaving behind a monolayer with the desired patterns.
- The patterned monolayer, which is blackened in the video, is then carbonized according to my invention, thus producing a sheet of patterned graphene.
The animation below illustrates the advantages of a solar cell made from the graphene produced by my technology. As you can see, multiple solar panels may be placed over each other in (transparent) layers, reducing the overall surface area of the configuration while maintaining equal performance. Furthermore, using a single panel (in a multi-layered solar panel) instead of hundreds of conventional single-layered panels, further reduces the cost of manufacturing solar panels.
My invention possesses many beneficial attributes, some of which are listed below:
- Inexpensive: Allows mass production of graphene to be produced very cost-effectively.
- The device in which the graphene is produced is a sealed unit comparable in dimensions to an ordinary “house refrigerator” or a “house freezer” (eliminating the need for a particle free room; thus reducing the costs even further).
- Continuous production of graphene/doped graphene in one piece and at a high rate of speed.
- The width of the produced graphene may be as narrow as a ribbon visible only under a microscope or, if desired, it may be as wide as a few feet.
- The ability to produce two types of graphene: “un-patterned”/“plain” graphene, as well as “patterned” graphene (useful in the production of integrated circuits, at a fraction of the current cost).
- The “lines” making up the above-mentioned “patterns” are on the nanometer scale.
- The process allows for the production of “isolated/singular” patterns as well as patterns that are joined together (i.e. any one pattern/integrated circuit may or may not be “electrically/physically” joined to any other pattern/integrated circuit, as desired).
- If desired, the “design” of a pattern may be changed while the continuous production of graphene is still in progress (i.e. there is no need to stop the production process for “re-tooling” for a new set of patterns).
What is the final challenge I need to overcome?
Background: I am a practicing pharmacist in Canada – I am not associated with a university or an institution, and therefore, at present, I have very limited access to a laboratory.
The final challenge I need to overcome is ‘the process of scaling up of the production’ and ironing out any kinks that might creep up.
Due to my limited access to a laboratory, this final phase of my project proceeds painfully slow.
My independence (from a university or an institution), while being very helpful during the initial phase of developing my invention (by freeing me up from any constraints to pursue my ideas), has now become a hindrance; therefore, I feel it is now the time to invite others to cooperate with me to help overcome the limitations I face (i.e. having adequate access to a laboratory in order to scale up the operation)
My next step is embarking on the final phase of my project, which is, bringing my technology to the market and ensuring the availability of massive amounts of graphene for use by the (High Tech) industry.
I am interested to hear from the parties which are interested in participating in my project.
I am completely open-minded as to consider various options, including:
- Investors interested in setting up a manufacturing plant from scratch, or
- Licensing options, or
- Partnering with a company which has the required infrastructure already in place.
From an investor’s point of view, are there any other advantages?
Yes, there are: All the preliminary scientific work have been completed – all that remains is the final stage of ‘scaling up’ which, in my estimation, would not take very long (around a few weeks or a couple of months).
The question is whether there are any projects with the promise of such a quick return of investment, considering the enormous market awaiting the arrival of abundant amounts of inexpensive graphene.
All roads lead to Rome:
There is no technology, besides Canada Graphene, in the industry that allows mass production of graphene cheaply; therefore, my patented technology remains the only alternative for any company wishing to incorporate graphene in their products.
Graphene samples are sold on the internet every day, so what is wrong with those graphenes?
The graphenes in the market suffer from two major problems:
1) Size: The small sizes of most of the graphenes currently on the market restrict them to be useful only for small-scale experiments i.e. not useful for the High-Tech industry.
2) Price: Currently available larger sized graphenes on the market are prohibitively expensive.
My invention does not suffer from the above drawbacks.
Can anyone else produce graphene in large sheets cheaply?
The research scientists are not even close to achieving the above objective (producing inexpensive, large samples of graphene).
The reason for the failure is that the scientists have employed the wrong methods to solve the problem, as explained below:
At first glance, the different methods employed by the scientists appeared to be diverse and vary greatly from one another; however, upon closer investigation, it became abundantly clear that it was not so, i.e. the various methods employed were merely different variations of two archetypal methods, namely:
- ‘Cutting out’ (or isolating) a single sheet of carbon atoms from a chunk of, e.g., pure graphite (using chemical means); or
- ‘Building up’ a sheet of pure carbon atoms from scratch (e.g. by chemical vapor deposition).
Both of the above archetypal methods have serious drawbacks, making them impractical for our purposes (graphene production).
The drawbacks of the above archetypes:
Both of the two methods above have the tendency to produce multi-layered final product adjacent to the desired single-layered product scattered here and there – not a uniform large sheet of a single-layered product throughout the sheet.
For example, when using the exfoliation method, there is no blade with an edge sharp enough to cut out exactly a single sheet (a single layer) of carbon atoms (from a chunk of, e.g., pure graphite) i.e. the final product will always consist of a multiple-layered product here and there. Similar problems arise when using the chemical exfoliation method, as there is no chemical process to separate exactly a single large sheet (a single large layer) of carbon atoms i.e. as different portions of the “sample” will be exfoliated at different rates, therefore the final product will always consist of a mixture of single as well as multiple-layered product.
So, how did you manage to solve the archetypal problem?
The problem was solved when I discovered a new archetypal method. The discovery of the third archetype was made possible after I started to look at the problem from a different angle, which led me to find a solution that fit my new perspective.
Background information (see Wikipedia): A Langmuir monolayer is a one-molecule-thick layer of an insoluble organic material (e.g. olive oil) spread onto the surface of water. Such monolayers are easily produced (using a Langmuir–Blodgett trough ) and then transferred (or mounted) onto substrates.
The genius of the new method is that using a monolayer literally ensures that the final product can only possess a single-layered structure i.e. that of graphene.
The explanation: As the starting material (in step one) consists of a single layer, the final product must also be single layered; in other words, a monolayer would not suddenly produce a multilayered final product; therefore, controlled carbonization of a monolayer sheet can only result in a single-layered sheet where the final product is pure carbon atoms (in a single-layered sheet), i.e. graphene.
Does your invention (cost-effective graphene) result in producing devices which are less expensive than the currently available Silicone-chips-based devices?
Yes; the final products (devices) will be less expensive than silicone-chips-based devices yet have higher quality because:
- With my invention,the starting material I use is different– I use inexpensive organic material to produce the graphene for various devices, whereas those same devices currently use the more expensive pure Silicone.
- My method does not need a “particle-free room”, versus the present methods which do – Particle-free rooms are very expensive to set up and expensive to operate.
Are graphene-based components / products superior to the conventional ones? Is there any actual proof?
Yes and yes.
Actually, in Feb. 2010, I.B.M. Corporation produced graphene-based Integrated Circuits which were 10 times faster than the Silicone equivalents – they also use significantly less power, and, do not generate heat.
The I.B.M. researchers painstakingly isolated small graphene samples produced by the alternative methods in their lab.
Using my method, such faster graphene-based IC’s will be even cheaper than the Silicone equivalents.
Contact for Mr. H. Famenini: firstname.lastname@example.org