You posted and highlighted the following on FGR. Isn't this what...

You posted and highlighted the following on FGR. Isn't this what you have strongly against and we have argued in the past 2 years and what TLG does and tries to tell in the past 2 year? If you only accept this by now because what the world has agreed upon, then you and FGR is 2-3 years behind.

"We can debate all day about the quality of different graphene samples. But we’re not here to do that. One interesting perspective that arose from this year’s event is how we use these different types of graphene. Instead of trying to categorise different types of graphene individually, the industry now looks at single layer graphene, multi-layer graphene, and the graphene oxide derivatives as “graphenes”—which is a significant advancement from last year where so many people tried to quantify graphene by its number of layers. In fact, some of the higher numbered layer graphenes can now be used in lower-tech products without the price of the product increasing.

Additionally, for many applications where the graphene is to be dispersed or composited, the layer number is not an issue, rather, it is the lateral dimensions of the graphene sheets and how they are functionalised before being implanted into the matrix that are important.So, really, after seeing the different priorities of the graphenes this year, the recent publication does not really have much bearing to the commercial aspects of graphene (unless there are more than 10 layers, then it is in fact technically graphite)."