The part of the paper where it draws a clear distinction between graphene and carbon nanotubes (as I did). They are not the same thing. It's in the first paragraph.

A few years back, Tour developed a process for “unzipping” carbon nanotubes so that they transformed into graphene.

They have to be transformed to be graphene (or vice versa). So you didn't read or comprehend the first paragraph of the source you used. You're completely talking out of your ass, with all due respect.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the quantity of material. So I already dismantled your arguments (and alleged evidence) and you don't have a rebuttal besides getting mad.

The part of the paper where it draws a clear distinction between graphene and carbon nanotubes. They are not the same thing. It's in the first paragraph.

A few years back, Tour developed a process for “unzipping” carbon nanotubes so that they transformed into graphene.

They have to be transformed to be graphene (or vice versa). So you didn't read or comprehend the first paragraph of the source you used. You're completely talking out of your ass, with all due respect.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the quantity of material. So I already dismantled your arguments (and alleged evidence) and you don't have a rebuttal besides getting mad.

The part of the paper where it draws a clear distinction between graphene and carbon nanotubes. They are not the same thing. It's in the first paragraph.

A few years back, Tour developed a process for “unzipping” carbon nanotubes so that they transformed into graphene.

They have to be transformed to be graphene (or vice versa). So you didn't read or comprehend the first paragraph of the source you used. You're completely talking out of your ass, with all due respect.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the quantity of material. So I already dismantled your arguments and you don't have a rebuttal besides getting mad.