Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday August 23 2019, @04:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the burning-issue dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3196

Heat shield just 10 atoms thick to protect electronic devices: Atomically thin heat shields could be up to 50,000 times thinner than current insulating materials in cell phones and laptops

Excess heat given off by smartphones, laptops and other electronic devices can be annoying, but beyond that it contributes to malfunctions and, in extreme cases, can even cause lithium batteries to explode. To guard against such ills, engineers often insert glass, plastic or even layers of air as insulation to prevent heat-generating components like microprocessors from causing damage or discomforting users.

Now, Stanford researchers have shown that a few layers of atomically thin materials, stacked like sheets of paper atop hot spots, can provide the same insulation as a sheet of glass 100 times thicker. In the near term, thinner heat shields will enable engineers to make electronic devices even more compact than those we have today, said Eric Pop, professor of electrical engineering and senior author of a paper published Aug. 16 in Science Advances.

"We're looking at the heat in electronic devices in an entirely new way," Pop said.

The heat we feel from smartphones or laptops is actually an inaudible form of high-frequency sound. If that seems crazy, consider the underlying physics. Electricity flows through wires as a stream of electrons. As these electrons move, they collide with the atoms of the materials through which they pass. With each such collision an electron causes an atom to vibrate, and the more current flows, the more collisions occur, until electrons are beating on atoms like so many hammers on so many bells -- except that this cacophony of vibrations moves through the solid material at frequencies far above the threshold of hearing, generating energy that we feel as heat.

Thinking about heat as a form of sound inspired the Stanford researchers to borrow some principles from the physical world. From his days as a radio DJ at Stanford's KZSU 90.1 FM, Pop knew that music recording studios are quiet thanks to thick glass windows that block the exterior sound. A similar principle applies to the heat shields in today's electronics. If better insulation were their only concern, the researchers could simply borrow the music studio principle and thicken their heat barriers. But that would frustrate efforts to make electronics thinner. Their solution was to borrow a trick from homeowners, who install multi-paned windows -- usually, layers of air between sheets of glass with varying thickness -- to make interiors warmer and quieter.

"We adapted that idea by creating an insulator that used several layers of atomically thin materials instead of a thick mass of glass," said postdoctoral scholar Sam Vaziri, the lead author on the paper.

Atomically thin materials are a relatively recent discovery. It was only 15 years ago that scientists were able to isolate some materials into such thin layers. The first example discovered was graphene, which is a single layer of carbon atoms and, ever since it was found, scientists have been looking for, and experimenting with, other sheet-like materials. The Stanford team used a layer of graphene and three other sheet-like materials -- each three atoms thick -- to create a four-layered insulator just 10 atoms deep. Despite its thinness, the insulator is effective because the atomic heat vibrations are dampened and lose much of their energy as they pass through each layer.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday August 23 2019, @05:43PM (2 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday August 23 2019, @05:43PM (#884260) Journal

    But we don't measure current in something per second -- although at the base most units, it seems it must be electrons per time. (coulombs per second?)

    Amperes are Coulombs per second.

    Electrons per time would be an impractical measure for two reasons: First, it would give impractically large numbers for everyday currents (even the SI prefixes would not suffice to describe them). And second, while in most cases, the charge flow is carried by electrons, sometimes (particularly in batteries) it is carried by ions instead.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 23 2019, @06:03PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 23 2019, @06:03PM (#884270) Journal

    Amperes are Coulombs per second.

    Thank you!

    I sort of vaguely remembered that from my DC Circuits class in, what was it?, oh, 1979! And I still have the textbook, somewhere.

    Thevenizing, Nortonizing, AC Circuits where voltage and current are out of phase, oh my!

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @09:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @09:03PM (#884352)

    Electrons per time would be an impractical measure for two reasons: First, it would give impractically large numbers for everyday currents (even the SI prefixes would not suffice to describe them). And second, while in most cases, the charge flow is carried by electrons, sometimes (particularly in batteries) it is carried by ions instead.

    Well there's also the little nuance that moving electrons does not, in and of itself, result in an electric current.

    Pick up an object and move it somewhere else on the desk. All the electrons (negative charge) in that object just moved, but there is no electric current as a result, because an equal amount of positive charge in that object moved in the same direction. An asymmetry in charge movement is required to have electric current.

    The idea that "electric current is the movement of electrons" is really a property of metals (and some other materials); solid metals in particular, where the positively-charged nuclei form rigid crystaline structures and zillions of electrons are "loose" and easily move around the material.