A Kansas State University team reported a laboratory method that forms graphene by detonating a mixture of hydrocarbon gas and oxygen. The team described gram-scale output as promising, but its January 2017 announcement also said that improving material quality and scaling the process to industrial production were still works in progress. It was not evidence that factories were mass-producing graphene.
How does the detonation method make graphene?
The researchers filled a chamber with acetylene or ethylene gas and oxygen, then used a vehicle spark plug to trigger a contained detonation. They collected the material formed afterward and identified graphene in the detonation products. The method emerged unexpectedly: the team had been making carbon soot aerosol gels, and later analysis of the products revealed graphene. Kansas State University’s January 25, 2017 announcement describes the process and discovery; a contemporaneous account also reports the serendipitous finding. [c002]
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Graphene | $14.19 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The Graphene Revolution: The weird science of the ultra-thin (Hot Science) | $16.53 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Graphene Bridge: Unlocking Tomorrow with the Graphene Technology Revolution in AI, Quantum... | $12.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Potentials of Graphene Oxide: Graphene for beginners | $12.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Carbon | $12.99 | Buy on Amazon |
The university said the earlier aerosol-gel work used a 17-liter aluminum chamber. That figure describes the chamber, not the amount of graphene produced or the process’s capacity.
What did “mass producing” mean in the 2017 announcement?
In this context, “mass producing” meant a reported move from milligrams to quantities measured in grams in laboratory work. It did not mean verified factory-scale throughput. K-State’s announcement also captioned a photograph as showing 13 grams of low-density graphene aerosol gel. That is a photographed sample, not an independently audited batch yield, production rate, or measure of commercial output.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
The team was upgrading equipment to retrieve graphene seconds rather than minutes after detonation, because the researchers thought faster collection might improve quality. The same announcement said they were still working to improve the material and scale the laboratory process to an industrial level.
How does this approach differ from other graphene methods?
K-State’s 2017 announcement contrasted detonation with chemical processing of graphite and heating hydrocarbons to about 1,000°C in the presence of catalysts. The university characterized those alternatives as energy intensive and said its detonation method used minimal energy and avoided dangerous chemicals. Those are the university’s comparisons in that announcement, not a current, independently controlled comparison of cost, energy use, safety, or yield. K-State’s announcement
Rank #2
- Orders are despatched from our UK warehouse next working day.
A meaningful evaluation would need to compare more than the headline process:
- Feedstock and chemistry: the reported method used acetylene or ethylene with oxygen; the announcement’s comparison refers to graphite processing and hydrocarbon heating with catalysts.
- Energy and temperature: K-State described detonation as using minimal energy, but the reviewed account does not provide a controlled lifecycle-energy comparison.
- Equipment and process control: the method depends on a chamber and controlled detonation, with collection timing under development.
- Output and quality: the team reported gram-scale quantities, while also saying it was still improving quality.
- Demonstrated scale: gram-scale laboratory output is not evidence of commercial throughput or industrial readiness.
What the researchers said—and what it establishes
Lead inventor Chris Sorensen, a Cortelyou-Rust university distinguished professor of physics, said, “We have discovered a viable process to make graphene.” He also described its “economic feasibility,” potential for large-scale production, and avoidance of “nasty chemicals.” Postdoctoral researcher and physics instructor Arjun Nepal said, “The real charm of our experiment is that we can produce graphene in the quantity of grams rather than milligrams.” These statements appeared in K-State’s announcement at the time; they are not a current status update or independent confirmation of commercial feasibility. K-State, January 25, 2017
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhat is known about the patent and commercial scale?
K-State said the patent, titled “Process for high-yield production of graphene via detonation of carbon-containing material,” was issued to the Kansas State University Research Foundation. The patent and the university’s report describe a method and its promise; neither, by itself, demonstrates commercial readiness. The reviewed sources establish what K-State reported in 2017, but do not establish whether the process was later commercialized, reached industrial scale, or has a particular current patent status.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
