Quantum dot technology science: censored by HTML hacking. Please try to read it anyway. This stuff may be what is inside of me/others. Once I get internet again I will try to clean it up.

an article worth reading.

from: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-resonant-energy-quantum-dots-graphene.html

an interesting site with over-view science about basic nanotechnology ‘developments’.

AUTHORS NOTES: It is MY BELIEF that some of the SCIENCE the public is told about, science being ‘discovered’ today in universities and R&D labs around the globe, is NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED, but, rather, being ‘seeded’ back into the stream of public knowledge in a way that lays out a ‘road map’ for it’s acceptance and use by the public sector.

I believe that much of this ‘nanotechnology’ being developed today has already been invented,tested, and deployed by the super-secret intelligence/military/govt/breakaway societies/etc.
When they were told that not only does the technology to read your ‘mind’ exist, but that IT CAN ALSO PUT THOUGHTS INTO ONES HEAD THAT THE TARGET CAN MISTAKE FOR THERE OWN THOUGHTS, they would be AFRAID!
AND when people found out that their government (or some secret faction thereof) has carried out continual aircraft spraying of not only weather modification chemicals in the sky, but of the nanotechnology and synthetic biology required to infect the population with this technology, they would have to take a good look at what we are calling government andleadership in this country and around the world.
And when it was explained to the people that the same spraying, weather modification, nanotechnology, viral vectoring, chem-trails toxins, heavy metals, etc, are DESIGNED to cause not only global warming, but to infect and murder millions over time through disease-based depopulation programs, designed to kill off entire segments of he population through disease that the same people can then profit from when the sick seek treatment and medication, they would be forced to make some real changes in the way humanity lives.
That being said, take a peek at this and remember that the diagram of the nano-device is GREATLY ENLARGED! I imagine one could put millions of these in a glass of water and you would not even see it. NANOSCALE! Tiny. small enough to eat. small enough to interact with DNA/RNA/GNA
And now, on to the SCIENCE:

Resonant energy transfer from quantum dots to graphene

May 22, 2014
Resonant energy transfer from quantum dots to graphene
Schematic of a quantum dot-graphene nano-photonic device, as described in this research project.

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are nanoscale semiconductors that exhibit size dependent physical properties. For example, the color (wavelength) of light that they absorb changes dramatically as the diameter decreases. Graphene is an atomically thick sheet of carbon atoms, arranged in a hexagonal lattice pattern. In this work, QDs have been combined with graphene to develop nanoscale photonic devices that can dramatically improve our ability to detect light.

Quantum dots can absorb light and it to graphene, but the efficiency of the transfer depends on how far the QDs and the graphene are separated from each other. This study demonstrated that the thickness of the organic molecule layer that typically surrounds the QDs is crucial in attaining sufficiently high efficiency of this light/energy transfer into the graphene. In other works, the thinner the organic layer, the better.

This transfer can be further optimized by engineering the interface between the two nanomaterials, specifically optimizing the thickness of the organic capping molecules on the . Based on this work, further improvement of the performance of these nano-photonic devices can be expected.

Resonant energy transfer from quantum dots to graphene
a) Schematic of a chloride-terminated CdSe quantum dot. b) A high resolution transmission electron microscopy image of such quantum dots.

Commercial (CdSe) quantum dots have long insulating organic ligands that prevent their utilization in energy and charge transfer applications for which short distances between the QDs and other materials are critical. Short, chlorine ligands that passivated CdSe QDs are an intriguing alternative material to enhance the interaction with materials into which charge carriers, such as electrons, can easily conduct.

Graphene is such a material. The combination of CdSe quantum dots and graphene could hold the key to the development and implementation of nanoscale materials systems in flexible electronics and photodetectors.

Resonant energy transfer from quantum dots to graphene
Photoluminescence lifetime decay of isolated quantum dots on glass (blue) and graphene (red) demonstrate efficient energy transfer between the quantum dots and graphene.

What Are The Details?

— CFN Capabilities: The Advanced Optical Microscopy Facility measured the time-resolved photoluminescence from isolated CdSe quantum dots deposited on graphene.

— The team discovered that short, chloride-capped CdSe quantum dots, deposited on chemical-vapor-deposited, monolayer layer graphene, exhibited highly efficient energy transfer to the graphene with a 4x observed reduction in the excitonic lifetime. This demonstrated significant near-field coupling between quantum dots and the .


or this article here about quantum dots, nano-devices and photo-luminescence.



We examine the time-resolved resonance energy transfer of excitons from single butyl amine-bound, chloride-terminated nanocrystals to two-dimensional graphene through time-correlated single photon counting. The radiative biexponential lifetime kinetics and blinking statistics of the individual surface-modified nanocrystal elucidate the non-radiative decay channels. Blinking modification as well as a 4× reduction in spontaneous emission were observed with the short chloride and -butylamine ligands, probing the energy transfer pathways for the development of graphene-nanocrystal nanophotonic devices.

Recent advances in ligand exchange techniques have paved the way for improved surface passivation of quantum dots. 1–3 In these techniques, long insulating organic ligands are replaced by short inorganic ligands. Recently, anionic halide ligands have been used to replace carboxylate ligands that balance the charge of the metal-rich nanoparticle surfaces, thus achieving charge-neutral nonstoichiometric particles without long chain organic surfactants. 4 These short compact halide ligands have been shown to effectively passivate mid-gap trap states in quantum dot films thus improving the open circuit voltage, leading to record power conversion efficiencies (8%). 5 Additionally, these short halide ligands are favorable for studies of the rich field of distant-dependent near field interactions.

Of particular interest are interactions between halide terminated quantum dots and two-dimensional materials, 6 which experience strongly enhanced coupling due to planar confinement and follow a d −4 distance scaling 7–9 at short distances where electron-hole pair interactions dominate. Since the isolation of single layer graphene, 10 there has been an explosion of research of purely two-dimensional materials due to the unique physics anticipated at this atomic scale. 11–17 Graphene, with its broadband transparency 18 and high carrier mobility, 19 provides a robust platform to explore light-matter interactions with photoexcited halide-terminated quantum dots. Additionally, graphene’s mechanical flexibility encourages its application in the emerging class of flexible electronics. In the presence of graphene, a donor-acceptor interaction occurs providing competing pathways for photoluminescence through Förster-like resonant energy and/or charge transfer. Spectral overlap, electronic coupling, and proximity determine the kinetics of energy and charge transfer between the excited quantum dot and graphene. Resonant energy transfer occurs via dipole coupling to the two-dimensional plane of graphene with a z −4 distance rate dependence. 6,19–21 Electronic excitation energy is transferred from the photoexcited dipole via Coulomb coupling to the graphene acceptor. Charge transfer is possible when suitable alignment occurs between the energy levels of the donor quantum dot and graphene acceptor.

Here, we study the near-field interactions between quantum dots passivated by non-insulating, inorganic ligands and graphene, which allows us to probe relaxation pathways relevant to nanophotonic devices such as photodetectors. We measure the radiative lifetime and blinking statistics of single chloride-terminated CdSe nanocrystals on large-area chemical-vapor-deposited (CVD) graphene to quantify the energy transfer rate and efficiency. A 4× reduction in the radiative lifetimes of the photoexcited single halide-terminated nanocrystals was observed on graphene clad glass substrates versus bare glass, corresponding to an energy transfer rate of 2.37 × 10 8 s −1.

Chloride-terminated nanocrystals were synthesized by cleaving the native long carboxylate ligands on core-only 3.3 nm CdSe nanocrystals as detailed in Ref. 4 . The resulting nanocrystals (Scheme 1 ) are passivated with chlorine ligands which balance the charge of the metal rich core and -butylamine ligands (0.6 nm in length), which maintain the solubility of the nanocrystals. Absorption and PL spectra of the chloride-terminated nanocrystals are provided in Figure 1(a) . The short distance (∼2.3 nm) from the -butylamine bound nanocrystal center to graphene facilitates greater dipole energy transfer compared to ∼4.5 nm from conventional oleic-acid capped nanocrystals of the same core diameter.


Scheme 1. Chemical synthesis and characterization of chloride-terminated CdSe nanocrystals. (a) Schematic depiction of nanocrystal synthesis. 4 (b) High-resolution transmission electron micrographs of CdSe-CdCl /RNH nanocrystals. Left scale bar: 50 nm. Right scale bar: 5 nm. (c) 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of CdSe-CdCl /RNH with ferrocene standard.


Click to view

FIG. 1. Spectroscopic characterization of the chloride-terminated nanocrystals and graphene. (a) Photoluminescence emission for the chloride-terminated nanocrystals, with peak intensity at 573 nm and first excitonic transition at 558 nm. (b) Raman spectra of CVD graphene on glass, for four different spatial positions superimposed. The and optical phonon bands homogeneity (centered at 1593 ± 2.2 nm and 2689 ± 3.9 nm, respectively), single peak linewidth symmetry, and linewidths ( band full-width half-maximum of 30.75 ± 4.9 nm and band full-width half-maximum of 44.65 ± 2.5 nm) indicate single layer graphene with good uniformity.

We probe the near field interactions between chloride-terminated nanocrystals and graphene by measuring the temporally resolved fluorescence of the nanocrystals on graphene-clad glass substrates and bare glass substrates. The comparative quenching of the fluorescence on graphene provides a measure of the non-radiative decay rate as will be discussed. Figure 1(b) shows the Raman spectra of the CVD graphene at different positions, confirming uniformity of monolayer graphene. Figure 2 compares the photoluminescence of individual chloride-terminated nanocrystals on graphene-clad glass and bare glass substrates, both pumped at 2  W averaged power with 90 ps pulses at 440 nm. On bare glass, single nanocrystals were more easily discernible with ∼170 counts per millisecond, while on graphene, the photon counts from the single nanocrystals are lower, ∼100 counts per millisecond. Photon collection at the individual or few nanocrystal level allows us to gain insight into the exciton radiative and non-radiative relaxation rates 22,23 which can be masked by ensemble inhomogeneous broadening. As shown by the circled points of interest in Figure 2 , individual nanocrystals were selected for lifetime measurements.


Click to view

FIG. 2. Single chloride-terminated nonstoichiometric nanocrystal photoluminescence spectroscopy: (a) single chloride-terminated nanocrystal on glass, pump excitation 2  W, (b) single chloride-terminated nanocrystal on graphene, pump excitation 2  W. The single nanocrystal photon counts are higher on glass (∼170 counts per millisecond) versus on graphene (∼100 counts per millisecond). Scale bar: 500 nm.

Individual nanocrystals are known to exhibit “blinking” behavior 24–26 with distinct “on” and “off” photoluminescence intensity states that can be characterized by probability distributions of their -times [ ( )] and -times [ ( )]. The probability distributions are modeled as power laws, 27 with the off-times described by P(toff)=Atmoffoff and the on-times described by a truncated power law, P(ton)=Atmononeton/τon . Figure 3 shows representative photoluminescence intensity traces of the individual chloride-terminated nanocrystals on comparative graphene and glass substrates, with a Δ  = 10 ms binning window.


Click to view

FIG. 3. Blinking statistics of single chloride-terminated quantum dot on glass and graphene, (a) representative intensity time trace of nanocrystal on glass. (b) Off-time probability distribution (1/s) on glass P(toff)=Atmoffoff ,  = 1.7. (c) On-time probability distribution on glass P(ton)=Atmononeton/τon ,  = 1.28,  = 0.5. (d) and (e) intensity time traces of nanocrystal on graphene. (f) Off-time probability distribution on graphene P(toff)=Atmoffoff ,  = 1.4. (g) On-time probability distribution on graphene P(ton)=Atmononeton/τon ,  = 0.48 and  = 2.3.

We confirm the presence of individual nanocrystals using power law statistics. The characteristic exponents for the off- and on-time distributions are extracted using a log-log least squares fitting method. For the off-time distribution, is found from the linear least-squares fitting of log[ ( )] versus log[ ] and for the on-time distribution, (saturation time) and are found from the least squares fitting to log[ ( )] versus log[ ]. Our results in Figures 3(b) and 3(c) show that the character of these individual chloride surface-modified nanocrystals (on glass) are in rough agreement with the / exponents of conventional spherical nanocrystals at this binning time. 28 We also observe a smaller , which is expected because decreases with the square of the applied power: 29 here we utilize a stronger pump power (2  W) due to the low quantum yield (∼3%) of these modified quantum dots at nanomolar concentration of amine. The chloride-terminated nanocrystals on CVD graphene demonstrated different blinking statistics as compared to glass as shown in Figures 3(f) and 3(g) . Characteristic blinking is not observed on CVD graphene as is evident from the log-log fit to the expected power law distribution for the on ( P(ton)=Atmononeton/τon ) and off (P(toff)=Atmoffoff ) times. Instead, varied fluctuations in intensity are observed in our measurements, as shown in Figures 3(d) and 3(e) . The causes of the fluctuations are not completely understood, but we believe that the surface states of the chloride-terminated nanocrystals play a role in varied fluctuations.

To rigorously quantify the energy transfer and quenching (especially in the presence of blinking), we examined the radiative lifetime of the individual surface-modified nanocrystals on graphene. The energy transfer rate, , and quenching can be experimentally determined from ket=1τobs1τobs , where is the radiative lifetime of the dipole on glass and is the radiative lifetime on graphene. The quenching (energy transfer rate) is of the form of Fermi’s Golden Rule, where de-excitation of the photoexcited nanocrystal and subsequent electronic excitation of graphene is driven by Coulomb dipole interactions of the nanocrystal and graphene. Several theoretical models have been developed to account for the near-field interaction of graphene and an excited emitter, confirming a 1/ 4 distance dependence where is the mean distance between the dipole center and the graphene surface. As with absorption, 30 the fine structure constant has been shown to be central to a universal scaling law of energy transfer in graphene, 7 yielding a simple and powerful relation. We adapt this scaling to yield a calculated energy transfer rate, , described by

kcal 1τo[9vα256π3(E+1)2(λ0z)4],


where v is a dipole orientation constant, v=1 and v=2 for parallel and perpendicular dipole orientation, respectively, λ0 is the free-space emission wavelength of the emitter, is the permittivity of the bulk medium (glass in this case), α is the fine structure constant, and τo is the radiative lifetime of the emitter in vacuum.As shown in Figure 4 , a biexponential lifetime decay was observed for individual chloride-terminated nanocrystals on both glass and graphene. The biexponential lifetime decay of these individual nanocrystals on glass can be attributed to fine splitting of the optical transitions in CdSe nanocrystal due to stochastic ground state dipole moments. These dipole moments arise from imperfect surface passivation. 31 With these chlorine-terminated quantum dots, imperfect surface passivation is in part due to the tendency of the amine ligands to dissociate from the nanocrystal surface at low ligand concentration in solution 32 and also to their slow evaporation from the nanocrystal surface when the nanocrystals are deposited on the substrate. The fast lifetime component ( ) of the lifetime decay is attributed to recombination of the populated core-state (surface states) while the slow lifetime component ( ) is attributed to exciton recombination. 33


Click to view

FIG. 4. Time-resolved lifetime measurements of single chloride-terminated nanocrystal on glass (blue) and graphene (red). (b)–(d) Distribution of lifetime components fit to Gamma distribution, (a) representative lifetime traces of single chlorine-terminated nanocrystal on glass and graphene. Inset: representative lifetime traces of single oleic-capped nanocrystals on glass and graphene, (b) distribution of weighted lifetime on glass and graphene (chlorine-terminated nanocrystals). (c) Distribution of long lifetime component ( ) on glass and graphene (chlorine-terminated nanocrystals). (d) Distribution of short lifetime component ( ) on glass and graphene (chlorine-terminated nanocrystals).

On graphene, both and components of the biexponential lifetime are shortened, as summarized in Figure 4(b) . This enhanced lifetime quenching is indicative of energy transfer of the excitons into graphene that is competitive with the present relaxation pathways: surface trap and exciton recombination. 33 The reduction of nanocrystal blinking on graphene further confirms that the energy transfer rate exceeds that of the competing pathway of photo-induced electron trapping rate of the blinking state. 6,34 With an amplitude-weighted average of the and lifetime components (given by =ni=1AiτiAi ), we observed an average lifetime of 13.2 ns (σ: 7.2 ns) on glass and 3.2 ns (σ: 2.2 ns) on graphene. This is also illustrated in Figure 4 and is a 4× reduction in the spontaneous emission lifetime. We note that the average on glass and graphene are 2.03 ns (σ: 0.50 ns) and 1.42 ns (σ: 0.28 ns), respectively. The average on glass and graphene are 30.49 ns (σ: 6.37 ns) and 25.31 ns (σ: 11.46 ns), respectively. With the amplitude-weighted lifetime, we obtain an experimentally observed resonant energy transfer rate of 2.4 × 10 8 s −1. This yields an energy transfer efficiency  1 ) of 76%.

For direct comparison, we also investigated the energy transfer between similarly sized CdSSe/ZnS nanocrystals (emission 578 nm) onto graphene as shown in the inset of Figure 4 . We expect the longer length of the oleic acid ligands terminating the nanocrystals to reduce energy transfer. We observe a 2.5× reduction in the spontaneous emission lifetime of these oleic acid capped nanocrystals (average lifetime on glass: 13.87 ns, σ: 10.79 ns and average lifetime on graphene: 5.46 ns, σ: 2.6 ns), corresponding to an energy transfer rate of 1.11 × 10 8 s −1. A biexponential decay is also observed with the oleate-terminated nanocrystals. Here the average on glass and graphene are 6.14 ns (σ: 5.75 ns) and 3.11 ns (σ: 0.92 ns), respectively. The average on glass and graphene are 33.01 ns (σ: 6.13 ns) and 31.76 ns (σ: 8.77 ns), respectively.

We note that the calculated rate of energy transfer (2.4 × 10 8 s −1) from chloride-terminated nanocrystals onto graphene is on par with dipole-dipole transfer in nanocrystal assemblies 35 and nanocrystals on graphene-derived surfaces, 36,37 albeit lower than intensity-derived energy transfer measurements of well-passivated core-shell nanocrystals on graphene 6 and recent molecule-graphene studies. 7 The ideal theoretical resonant energy transfer rate (from Eq. (1) ) is 4.0 × 10 10 s −1 for the parallel dipole orientation ( ) and 8.1 × 10 10 s −1 for the perpendicular dipole orientation ( ), yielding a dipole-averaged [k = (2/3)  + (1/3) ] Förster energy transfer rate (1/ ) of 5.4 × 10 10 s −1. Considering the additional distance added from the presence of residual poly-methyl-methacrylate (PMMA: ∼1 nm thickness), on the graphene surface, the theoretical resonant energy is adjusted to 1.28 × 10 10 s −1. The energy transfer efficiency can be improved with thorough removal of any residual films such as the PMMA film on graphene, reduction of impurities at the substrate-graphene interface through a dry transfer technique, 38 removal of the remaining alklyamines groups on the modified nanocrystal surface, and further passivation of the chloride-surface modified nanocrystals.

Our results have demonstrated significant near-field coupling between isolated surface-treated nanocrystals and larger-area monolayer CVD graphene. This study shows that considerable energy transfer rates (2.37 × 10 8 s −1) and energy transfer efficiencies (76%) are possible with chloride-terminated CdSe nanocrystals. Halide ligands are attractive for energy transfer applications because of their short length, however a trade-off exists between efficient coulombic coupling and surface stability. The high theoretical energy transfer rate greatly motivates further studies to optimize the ligand length towards improved energy transfer performance. Following these studies, numerous research areas are ripe for exploration with this system including plasmonics 8 and photo-detection. 39


The authors acknowledge discussions with Zheyuan Chen and thank Nicolas Bais, Justin Abramson, Edward Judokusumo, Lance Kam, and Michael Sheetz, on the early single nanocrystal photoluminescence measurements. This work was supported primarily as part of the Center for Redefining Photovoltaic Efficiency through Molecule Scale Control, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under Award No. DE-SC0001085. The EFRC was supported by the New York State Office of Science, Technology, and Academic Research (NYSTAR) under Contract No. C090147. O.A.A. acknowledges a Graduate Research Fellowship through the National Science Foundation. N.C.A. was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE07-07425. Research carried out in part at the Center for Functional Nanomaterials, Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.

  1. Z. Lin, H. Li, A. Franceschetti, and M. Lusk, 6(5), 4029 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn3003407
  2. J. S. Owen, J. Park, P. E. Trudeau, and A. P. Alivisatos, 130, 12279 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja804414f
  3. J. Tang, K. W. Kemp, S. Hoogland, K. S. Jeong, H. Liu, L. Levina, M. Furukawa, X. Wang, R. Debnath, D. Cha, K. W. Chou, A. Fischer, A. Amassian, J. B. Asbury, and E. H. Sargent, 10, 765 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat3118
  4. N. C. Anderson and J. S. Owen, 25, 69 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cm303219a
  5. A. H. Ip, S. M. Thon, S. Hoogland, O. Voznyy, D. Zhitomirsky, R. Debnath, L. Levina, L. R. Rollny, G. H. Carey, A. Fischer, K. W. Kemp, I. J. Kramer, Z. Ning, A. J. Labelle, K. W. Chou, A. Amassian, and E. H. Sargent, 7, 577 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.127
  6. Z. Chen, S. Berciaud, C. Nuckolls, T. F. Heinz, and L. E. Brus, 4, 2964 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn1005107
  7. L. Gaudreau, K. J. Tielrooij, G. E. D. K. Prawiroatmodjo, J. Osmond, F. J. García de Abajo, and F. H. L. Koppens, 13, 2030 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl400176b
  8. G. Gómez-Santos and T. Stauber, 84, 165438 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.165438
  9. R. S. Swathi and K. L. Sebastian, 130, 086101 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3077292
  10. K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, 306(5696), 666 (2004). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1102896
  11. A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, 6, 183 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat1849
  12. A. C. Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, 81(1), 109 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.109
  13. A. N. Grigorenko, M. Polini, and K. S. Novoselov, 6(11), 749 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2012.262
  14. S. Z. Butler, S. M. Hollen, L. Cao, Y. Cui, J. A. Gupta, H. R. Gutiérrez, and J. E. Goldberger, 7(4), 2898 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn400280c
  15. Y. Zhang, Y. W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, 438, 201–204 (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04235
  16. C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch, M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard, J. Hone, and P. Kim, 497(7451), 598 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12186
  17. C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, 321, 385 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1157996
  18. K. F. Mak, M. Y. Sfeir, Y. Wu, C. H. Lui, J. A. Misewich, and T. F. Heinz, 101, 196405 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.196405
  19. K. I. Bolotin, K. J. Sikes, Z. Jiang, M. Klima, G. Fudenberg, J. Hone, P. Kim, and H. L. Stormer, 146, 351 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssc.2008.02.024
  20. E. Morales-Narváez, B. Pérez-López, L. B. Pires, and A. Merkoçi, 50, 2987 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2012.02.081
  21. S. Jang and Y. C. Cheng, 3, 84–104 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1111
  22. R. Bose, J. Gao, F. W. Sun, J. F. McMillan, A. D. Williams, and C. W. Wong, 17, 22474 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.022474
  23. M. T. Rakher, R. Bose, C. W. Wong, and K. Srinivasan, 19, 1786–1793 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.001786
  24. M. Nirmal, B. O. Dabbousi, M. G. Bawendi, J. J. Macklin, J. K. Trautman, T. D. Harris, and L. E. Brus, 383, 802 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/383802a0
  25. C. Galland, Y. Ghosh, A. Steinbrück, J. A. Hollingsworth, H. Htoon, and V. I. Klimov, 3, 908 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1916
  26. C. Galland, Y. Ghosh, A. Steinbrück, J. A. Hollingsworth, V. I. Klimov, and H. Htoon, 479, 203–207 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10569
  27. M. Kuno, D. P. Fromm, H. F. Hamann, A. Gallagher, and D. J. Nesbitt, 112, 3117 (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.480896
  28. C. H. Crouch, O. Sauter, X. Wu, R. Purcell, C. Querner, M. Drndic, and M. Pelton, 10, 1692–1698 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl100030e
  29. J. J. Peterson and D. J. Nesbitt, 9, 338–345 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl803108p
  30. R. R. Nair, P. Blake, A. N. Grigorenko, K. S. Novoselov, T. J. Booth, T. Stauber, N. M. R. Peres, and A. K. Geim, 320, 1308 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1156965
  31. A. Al Salman, A. Tortschanoff, G. Van der Zwan, F. Van Mourik, and M. Chergui, 357, 96 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2008.10.042
  32. N. C. Anderson, M. P. Hendricks, J. J. Choi, and J. S. Owen, 135, 18536–18548 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja4086758
  33. X. Wang, L. Qu, J. Zhang, X. Peng, and M. Xiao, 3(8), 1103 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl0342491
  34. Y. Matsumoto, R. Kanemoto, T. Itoh, S. Nakanishi, M. Ishikawa, and V. Biju, 112, 1345 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp076659+
  35. R. Bose, J. F. McMillan, J. Gao, C. J. Chen, D. V. Talapin, C. B. Murray, K. M. Rickey, and C. W. Wong, 8, 2006–2011 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl8011243
  36. M. Liu, H. Zhao, X. Quan, S. Chen, and X. Fan, 46, 7909 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0cc02085k
  37. I. V. Lightcap and P. V. Kamat, 134, 7109–7116 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja3012929
  38. N. Petrone, C. R. Dean, I. Meric, A. M. van der Zande, P. Y. Huang, L. Wang, D. Muller, K. L. Shepard, and J. Hone, 12(6), 2751–2756 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl204481s
  39. G. Konstantatos, M. Badioli, L. Gaudreau, J. Osmond, J., Bernechea, F. P. G. Arquer, and F. H. Koppens, 7(6), 363–368 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.60

About Timothytrespas

I am a victim of human experimentation MK-ultra mind control Morgellons nanotechnology syndrome & remote neural connectivity. I am an artist, inventor, musician, thinker, lover, human being who cares for all humanity & all life. I believe people should endeavor to live in peaceful cooperation rather than brutal waring survival of the most brutal. We live in a forced false-paradigm and I desire to wake people up from the 'trance hypnotic mind control programming' to the 'TRUTH of light and love'! Blessing and peace. Justice to all who suffer under tyranny. Compassion for all beings. May GOD have mercy on us all.
This entry was posted in nanotechnology, stories of secret torture, tracking and murder, in and by the U.S.A. intelligence community and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Quantum dot technology science: censored by HTML hacking. Please try to read it anyway. This stuff may be what is inside of me/others. Once I get internet again I will try to clean it up.

  1. Hello! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would really enjoy your
    content. Please let me know. Cheers


  2. Thanks for sharing.It was seriously marvelous looking at with regards to all of your thoughts about this specific subject matter.I was trying to find this sort of write up for some time,and fortunately i found your website.I really hope you will continue to keep helping people in the same way in future also.


  3. Pingback: God Wants You to Prosper – A Directive From God Part 2 | When is Jesus Coming Back?

  4. Pingback: How I Became A Gang Stalking Target as an FBI Whistleblower. | Monarch No Touch Torture aka Gang Stalking Information

I would love to hear your thoughts and opinion in these issues. Please Leave a Reply:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s