Page 2 of 2

### Re: 200 tesla (localized) by stretching graphene

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:42 pm
DeltaV wrote:But I am not confusing cause and effect in the hypothesized system.

What hypothesized system?
You are quoting a REAL experiment done in a REAL lab with REAL results and where NO REAL B FIELD HAS BEEN FOUND from the very same people whose work you are quoting.

If you are convinced that those scientists mistook their measurements than you should address your concerns to them directly ans share with them the merits for this new discovery. After all that's why papers are published on scientific magazines.

http://research.physics.berkeley.edu/zettl/pdf/386.Science.329-Levy.pdf

Write to them and let us know their reply, I am eager and curious to hear what they think of your interpretation of their work.

### Re: 200 tesla (localized) by stretching graphene

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:09 am
Giorgio wrote:What hypothesized system?

So you didn't bother to read sentence 1 in post 1?
So, if you folded it in the middle, wrapping it a half turn around a nonconducting nanocylinder (with a large enough diameter to keep the two parallel graphene halves from interfering), then pulled on both ends of the cylinder in one direction and the two graphene ends in the opposite direction, the B vectors normal to the graphene would combine, instead of canceling in the far field.

Giorgio wrote:You are quoting a REAL experiment done in a REAL lab with REAL results and where NO REAL B FIELD HAS BEEN FOUND from the very same people whose work you are quoting.

What prevents you from understanding the difference between far (at a distance) field and near (close to) field?

What additionally prevents you from understanding folding through a third dimension by a half turn?

Do you even know how to sum vectors?

http://research.physics.berkeley.edu/zettl/pdf/386.Science.329-Levy.pdf

I'll read it if you will. I've just read one sentence so far:
This pseudoâ€“magnetic field is expected to
mimic the influence of a real magnetic field applied
perpendicular to the graphene sheet

So, does "mimic the influence of a real magnetic field" include making electron paths curve? If it does not, as you seem to believe, then you need to write the authors and tell them they are in error.

### Re: 200 tesla (localized) by stretching graphene

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:26 am
DeltaV wrote:
Giorgio wrote:What hypothesized system?
So you didn't bother to read sentence 1 in post 1?

It was a rhetorical question, not a real question....

The meaning is that you can't extrapolate an hypothesis from a reported experiment by changing the results or the basis of the experiment to please your personal view of the effect reported.

DeltaV wrote:Do you even know how to sum vectors?

Oh, it easy: Virtual vector 1 + Virtual vector 2 + Virtual vector n = NO REAL Vector.

Wish you could prove me wrong on this as you seem really convinced that adding virtual stuff gives real effect.

DeltaV wrote:So, does "mimic the influence of a real magnetic field" include making electron paths curve? If it does not, as you seem to believe, then you need to write the authors and tell them they are in error.

Ah, here we go. Making extraordinary claims without bothering to offer any proof and asking OTHERS to prove that you are wrong.
I guess that even after Dr. Crommie statement that they didn't measure any real B field you will probably accuse him of not understanding you theory or not understanding what a Virtual magnetic field is.
Really, your attitude remember me more and more the one of Rossi, Parallel and other "amazing claimers " out there....

### Re: 200 tesla (localized) by stretching graphene

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:52 pm
Fixed that for ya...
Real vector + (laterally displaced -Real vector) = NO REAL Vector in the far field.

Giorgio wrote:Wish you could prove me wrong on this as you seem really convinced that adding virtual stuff gives real effect.

Stop your lying. Nowhere above do I say virtual stuff should be added. I'm adding hypothesized real vectors. To repeat, I am not saying the real vectors must have the pseudo magnitudes.

Giorgio wrote:Ah, here we go. Making extraordinary claims without bothering to offer any proof

You are really good at psyops, G. I made NO claim. I speculated about an untested configuration, a strained, double-tapered, folded, graphene nanoribbon, not the triangular nanobubbles you linked. What do I care about triangular nanobubbles?

Giorgio wrote:and asking OTHERS to prove that you are wrong.

As you did first?
Giorgio wrote:If you are convinced that those scientists mistook their measurements than you should address your concerns to them directly...

Write to them and let us know their reply...

Giorgio wrote:I guess that even after Dr. Crommie statement that they didn't measure any real B field you will probably accuse him of not understanding you theory

Theory? WHAT theory? Again, what do I care about triangular nanobubbles?

Giorgio wrote:Stranding of the Graphene will make the electrons to turn in a circle, as they would in a magnetic field

Please educate us on your Theory that electrons forced to move in circles (as if they moved through a coiled wire) do NOT produce a real magnetic field.

### Re: 200 tesla (localized) by stretching graphene

Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:31 pm
DeltaV wrote: Nowhere above do I say virtual stuff should be added. I'm adding hypothesized real vectors. To repeat, I am not saying the real vectors must have the pseudo magnitudes.

DeltaV wrote:You are really good at psyops, G. I made NO claim. I speculated about an untested configuration, a strained, double-tapered, folded, graphene nanoribbon, not the triangular nanobubbles you linked. What do I care about triangular nanobubbles?

You are adding an hypothesized real vector that has no chance to appear because there are not the underling forces to allow it to exist.
You could have as well added a monopolar field or a pink unicorn for what it was worth.
And those triangular nanobubbles are all what there is so far to the field of strand induced pseudomagnetic deformations, which should make you understand that being a LOCALIZED phenomena it means that it is an induced phenomena from the deformation, and NOT from a real magnetic field.
hence, even if they will ever find a way to have a uniform lattice deformation as suggested there will be no real B vector field normal to the Graphene tape.

Making theories out of twisting words from real experimental reports just to suit your personal hope that an amazing phenomena will appear is not really a useful scientific behavior.

DeltaV wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Stranding of the Graphene will make the electrons to turn in a circle, as they would in a magnetic field

Please educate us on your Theory that electrons forced to move in circles (as if they moved through a coiled wire) do NOT produce a real magnetic field.

Because is known that electrons move in circles ONLY "(as if they moved through a coiled wire)"!! Tell me, you really can't understand how an electron cloud moves around the atoms that compose a lattice of Graphene (and what effect they produce) or you are just trying to twist the discussion out of the nonsense that real effect can come out of a Pseudomagnetic field?