http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...ron-micros.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...cosahedron.jpg

wut

Hmm, maybe. Then again, maybe it could work within an epoxy matrix, kind of like Easton's CNT stuff but with more coherence, so to speak.

Hell, I'm just guessing... :D

Yeah, who knows. I think I'll stick to my research in high temperature superalloys.

Thick sheets of graphine are also known as...graphite.

And there is a huge difference between a continual sheet of graphine, which is very strong, and graphite, composed of many, many small 'sheets'.

It was just last year that the first graphine sheet larger than 1000 square micrometers was produced.

Here is an article on attempts to use larger sheets for touch screens: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ene-sheet.html

my new graphene bike is gonna have power meter pedals

The electrical properties of graphene can be described by a conventional tight-binding model; in this model the energy of the electrons with wavenumber k is[53][55]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/e...6a96cf426b.pngwith the nearest-neighbor hopping energy γ0 ≈ 2.8 eV and the lattice constant a ≈ 2.46 Å. Conduction and valence band, respectively, correspond to the different signs in the above dispersion relation; they touch each other in six points, the "K-values". However, only two of these six points are independent, whereas the rest is equivalent by symmetry. In the vicinity of the K-points the energy depends linearly on the wavenumber, similar to a relativistic particle. Since an elementary cell of the lattice has a basis of two atoms, the wave function even has an effective 2-spinor structure. As a consequence, at low energies, even neglecting the true spin, the electrons can be described by an equation which is formally equivalent to the massless Dirac equation. Moreover, in the present case this pseudo-relativistic description is restricted to the chiral limit, i.e., to vanishing rest mass M0, which leads to interesting additional features:[55]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3...e6cd5606e9.pngHere vF ~ 106 is the Fermi velocity in graphene which replaces the velocity of light in the Dirac theory; http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/4...5329f3d0df.png is the vector of the Pauli matrices, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/e...4aee210955.png is the two-component wave function of the electrons, and E is their energy.[80]

^^^^ which means...?

Imagine that post being spoken by Data in a scene in Star Trek TNG. Capt Picard gives him a blank stare. How does Data explain it in one sentence in his next line?

It means he copied and paste the Wikipedia entry word for word. Yay plagiarism!
link

I pick this one. But I'm gonna mod it:

"Carbon fibre is tightre"

Pronounced:
"Carbon feebray is teetray"

As I understand it graphene occurrs in graphite but is not the whole makeup of graphite.

Also, "thick" is a meaningless term in 2 dimensions.

Yeah, I know :D I wanted to see if he knew what he was copying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ported_License

It's only a violation of the copyright if he failed to attribute (which he did). And it's not plagiarism because he in no way tried to claim it was his work. Any idiot can tell he copied and pasted that (the hyperlinks are a dead giveaway).

Graphine is a two dimensional atomic structure. Things composed of it are not.

My badminton racket is made of Fullrene (C60) Yay...
now I need to duct tape a couple of those together...

Those aren't made of fullrenes. They use normal CF and then, as far as I can tell, mix fullerines into the resin. Primarily marketing advantage, rather than structural.

It doesn't have to be a violation of copyright to be plagiarism, and he didn't attempt to attribute it at all. I was being a bit flip, but when you copy something, even in an informal discussion on a board, I think you should clearly state where it came from. And the fact that it's obvious plagiarism doesn't somehow make it not plagiarism.

That said, it's an internet forum, not an academic journal. I don't want to make a big deal out of it.

Of course, it's all so simple now!

I don't know what they're going to make out of the stuff but I want one.

great post.

Plagiarism requires you to try and take credit. I don't think he's trying to take credit, but his attribution is missing. It's an internet forum so it's little different from casual conversation. It's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious academic charge, not something you throw around in casual conversation.

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this either, I just want to explain why I don't believe it's plagiarism which I think is a very serious charge that should be reserved for times when it actually matters. It was a copyright violation, although all he had to do to fix that was attribute it since the original material is CC share alike.

Points taken. My post was certainly not meant as a "very serious charge", and I doubt anyone took it that way. It was meant to be a bit of a barb, because I think it's slack just to dump a bunch of text in from an unnamed source and post it without attribution.

I do think the analogy of internet forum = casual conversation fails in this case. In a casual conversation, you can't suddenly start spouting word for word from an undocumented source unless you have some kind of freak photographic memory.

I stand by my larger point, which is you should include attribution when posting large chunks of material from outside sources, even if it's just starting your post with "From Wikipedia", and then putting quotes around the block of text.

There are many different views on plagiarism, though, and intelligent people can disagree.

And now, for you entertainment
Tom Lehrer's musical take on the topic of plagerism

Ok so i guess, this is exactly what people thought about carbon when it was developed...