Yes, clearly it had to be GHz.
With all due respect, you clearly said GB multiple times, which isn't clearly GHz at all.
Really your entire response is showing what I initially stated, that you don't have a solid understanding of the science.
Here's some links to the citations you wanted: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40942-8 (Graphene in 5G environment) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature26160 (Graphene as a superconductor)
Those papers did not confirm your original claim. So you were confusing several points in your statement about graphene oxide -> "It is important to note that Graphene Oxide becomes a SUPERCONDUCTOR when it reaches EM levels of just several GB."
Oh, you meant only graphene oxide... Fine here's a link - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0254058419310673
No, you said Graphene Oxide, it wasn't about what I meant. And the paper you provided on GO didn't confirm your initial statement either.
So you're very unclear on the science you are stating, and you keep changing your story. These arguments you are making are getting long winded and are almost all not properly citing what specifically you needed to cite. So I'm done. But I appreciate your time.
Yes, clearly it had to be GHz.
With all due respect, you clearly said GB multiple times, which isn't clearly GHz at all.
Really your entire response is showing what I initially stated, that you don't have a solid understanding of the science.
Here's some links to the citations you wanted: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40942-8 (Graphene in 5G environment) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature26160 (Graphene as a superconductor)
Those papers did not confirm your original claim. So you were confusing several points in your statement about graphene oxide -> "It is important to note that Graphene Oxide becomes a SUPERCONDUCTOR when it reaches EM levels of just several GB."
Oh, you meant only graphene oxide... Fine here's a link - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0254058419310673
No, you clearly said Graphene Oxide, it wasn't about what I meant. And the paper you provided on GO didn't confirm your initial statement either.
So you're very unclear on the science you are stating, and you keep changing your story. These arguments you are making are getting long winded and are almost all not properly citing what specifically you needed to cite. So I'm done. But I appreciate your time.