Talk:Graphene nanoribbon

Computing applications

In applications, computing applications are missing. Please add: Engineer Unveils New Spin on Future of Transistors with Novel Design https://www.utdallas.edu/news/2017/6/5-32589_Engineer-Unveils-New-Spin-on-Future-of-Transistors_story-wide.html Joseph S. Friedman et al, Cascaded spintronic logic with low-dimensional carbon, Nature Communications (2017). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15635 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15635 Engineer unveils new spin on future of transistors with novel design June 5, 2017, University of Texas at Dallas https://phys.org/news/2017-06-unveils-future-transistors.html Graphene Computers Work 1000 Times Faster, Use Far Less Power https://futurism.com/graphene-computers-work-1000-times-faster-use-far-less-power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5C6C:C600:4052:22BB:F743:DD47 (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Armchair v zigzag

Someone please explain "armchair" versus "zigzag"! I can guess, but one sentence in the article would be enough to keep people from needing to guess. John Baez (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief explanation is here: if you look along different directions in the graphene plane, you'll notice different patterns of carbon chains, which look like a zigzag or (with a good imagination) an armchair. Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Does animation calc include 2nn hopping terms

I'm curious whether you included second nearest neighbor hopping terms in the tight-bindinding calculation used to produce the animation. I'm doing a similar calculation and wanted to check my results. Ben.Haynor (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Text suggests DFT calc more realistic than tight-binding so could we have graphs based on DFT ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Important citation

I don't think that the statement "Graphene ribbons were originally introduced as a theoretical model by Mitsutaka Fujita and co-authors" is actually correct. Consider this reference:

K. Tanaka, S. Yamashita, H. Yamabe, and T. Yamabe. Electronic properties of one-dimensional graphite family. Synthethic Metals 17, 143 (1987).

The authors in fact calculate band structures of different thin ribbons and even investigate the dependence of the energy gap on the width! This should definitely be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.98.90 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Graphene nanoribbon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

137.132.3.6 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I just read through it, and found some contradicting statements. This line "...zigzag GNRs are always metallic while armchairs can be either metallic or semiconducting, depending on their width." states that zigzag GNR are ALWAYS metallic, yet a few lines later, "Zigzag nanoribbons are also semiconducting" states that the same zigzag GNR are semiconducting. How can it be the case that they are ALWAYS metallic, yet also shows semiconducting properties?

Last edited at 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)