User talk:DCGE

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't generalize that strong claim on helicity from one-two studies - we do know that helicity does strongly depend on the growth mode. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Materialscientist, for your another comment, I do published another paper in Scientific Reports (Nature journals), entitled “The seeded growth of graphene (Lee at al., Scientific Reports, 4, 5682), where we show that MWNTs are disintegrated into graphite helices (demonstrating that MWNTs are of helical graphite), and eventually into graphene nanopowders (Fig. 1 of the paper). I think that you can understand the new science on the structures of carbon nanotubes if you read the papers. Here, helicity (or Chirality) does not exist and is misinterpretation of the tilts of the samples on the TEM stage (for MWNTs) or distortion of graphene helices (for SWNTs). I hope that you understand that I updated "facts" (that there are two reports revealing new science on the structure of CNTs) with the scientific references and this update is acceptable here. I remind that “Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect” (I am sure that the new science on CNTs as well as my update is perfect) Thus, please do not remove my updates. Of course, any discussions on the structures of CNTs are opened.
 * Have a look at high-resolution images, like those by Suenaga.
 * Even if you don't believe direct observations, what you're saying may not apply to SWNTs and MWNTs in general, it may only apply to those few samples that you have studied, i.e. you have to carefully explain under which CNT growth conditions your observations are valid. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. K. Suenaga's HRTEM image (JEOL News Vol. 44 (2009) 32), which is provided in the Small paper as a supplementary data, is a key evidence of the new model. HRTEM images showing atomic resolution for CNTs including R. R. Meyer's data in J. of Microscopy 212 (2003) 152, IIjima's data in Nature 430 (2004) 870, and many others provide evidence of the new helical models. Please read the Small paper.
 * Will do tomorrow at work. Anyway, you can not generalize your results from one-two studies on CNTs in general. Further, you refer to minor publications of Suenaga. Look at his major works in Nature and Science journals reporting atomic observations of individual tubes (with peapods inside or not, doesn't matter). They clearly show that tubes are tubes, not ribbons. And again, those are just some tubes. Even he can not generalize. TEM is a very local probe. Materialscientist (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that your view on the structure of CNTs is general at the moment. I did not GENERALIZE the structure in the update. I added the fact that there are other views on the structure of CNTs. This is acceptable. I remind again “Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect". Please DO NOT remove my updates.
 * As I mentioned earlier, you have to be very, very careful in formulating your findings. Otherwise they do sound as sheer nonsense. If you read your own abstracts, you'd notice important bits like "some nanotubes [may show this and that]".
 * Wikipedia may not be perfect, but it has a few key policies that do apply to you: (i) WP:COI - do not promote your work, let others do that. (ii) WP:REDFLAG - strong claims need strong evidence. (iii) WP:PRIMARY - strong claims need secondary sources showing that results are recognized by the scientific community. I see none of that here. Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that my update is not a good way. I will wait until others do it. Thanks for your reasonable comments. Then I cannot agree with your views on the papers and the models. The words “certain (some) SWNTs” are “careful and exact expression” (one can observe only some samples by TEM, as you said). We also proposed that the model is a ubiquitous structure of SWNTs in the abstract. Please read the paper to end. You should agree with the model because “all previously reported data” can be explained by the model. My institute released the results (Small paper) into press, June 2014. And almost all scientific oriented presses dealt with the issue. So, here, our model has been generalizing. I also gave an invited lecture regarding the new models of CNTs in Carbon Conference (the biggest conference on Carbon materials here). Dr. R. S. Ruoff (University of Texas) also gave an invited lecture (graphene) in the conference. I discussed the new model with Dr. Ruoff for a long time and he did not argue me and wanted me sending the papers. Many scientist including Dr. C. Berger (CNRS), Prof. J. Robertion (University of Cambridge) who discussed with me in DCM 2014 Conference (European Conference on Diamond and Carbon Materials, Madrid, Spain, 8-11 Sep. 2014) know the models. Nobody (who I discussed) argued the models. The models will be heliocentric theory for geocentricism theory. I suggest that you give your view “after reading fully the papers”. Then let’s discuss again.
 * Well, it is just a model that explains your TEM data (which are not of superior quality compared to previous TEM work, no offense intended), and I do not see any support of this model by the community - support by your institute does not count. I would also suggest you to look at other chirality-related CNT properties, such as optical results related to the Kataura plot. There is a vast amount of data confirming the discrete nature of the plot, whereas upon a quick reading I figure that your model predicts a more continuous graph (bandgap vs. CNT diameter). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For TEM data, you are wrong. The model explains previously reported data (exactly Suenaga and Meyer’s HRTEM images: please see the supporting materials of the paper) rather than my data. This is the reason how the difficult paper has been published. Reviewers were rejected with the comments just like you. But, I provided the data (as supplementary information) and the paper has been accepted in Small. I have read almost all papers related with CNTs before because it took 5 years to publish and referred some of them in the paper. Chirality of CNT (very complicate) is unnecessary theory. Plane indices of the classic crystal growth theory are enough to describe SWNTs (I think that Science is simple). The cover of Small and the selection as “Most read papers” indicate the importance of the paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.122.23.158 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)