Originally Posted by Tog
the Nobel Commitee gives awards for basic science. You took their extrapolated, hypothetical, comparison of how strong this material would be on a human - or human pet, scale and then used that to say, "So I actually think this is real, not marketing..", ( Posted by beyond ), yet the two have nothing to do with each other. You're misrepresenting my words. I said you can argue with them about their hypothetical. Their words, and I guess they're idiots for using that hypothetical. I said I think whatever Head's using (in the Joy series for instance) is real. And according to every reviewer I've read out there, including Trek C. here, it has a real effect.
These tests of Graphene are like testing an ant for how much they can lift. Below is an ant suspending 100 times it's body weight while clinging to a surface. Using the hypothetical extrapolation that appears to be used for Graphene, we would make a statement like, "I'm going to use Ants, the strongest lifting mechanism in the world, to lift my house". Then we'd tell you that scaled up to a 200lb human, the Ants could lift over 10,000lbs. So, we're simply going to use an ant matrix of one billion ants to lift the house. Except I wouldn't even give you a specific number, just that they're really strong. Obviously, we know that ant lifting doesn't scale or humans would have harnessed them years ago instead of harnessing humans or inventing hydraulics. You're using an inappropriate example, one I'm very familiar with. Teach the insects-can't-be-as-big-as-houses every spring. But the ratio between muscle or exoskeleton strength (roughly cross sectional area) and weight of those structures (increases by the volume, so cubic) is a parabola. Neither you nor I know if the size to strength relationships of Graphene are strongly curvilinear or nearly linear. Nor whether if curvilinear they have the same curve as an ant's size and weight. So let go of a bad argument, and just leave it at, "we're not sure how accurate the extrapolation is."
The question is does Graphene scale at the present to make a structural difference in a ski or tennis raquet? The answer appears to be a resounding "no". Is Graphene used to strengthen other materials? Looks like we've got some copper alloys, but still they're research based and are on the order of 70-300nmeters thick. That's approx 1/3,000,000 - 1/100,000 of an inch thick. Not much use for a ski. So the use of "Graphene" appears to be marketing. Maybe it's just graphite. What does the engineer think? Who knows. They're not marketers. In general, they make bad marketers. Too hung up on numbers and reality - making actual skis. The question would be, what are they using that the marketers are calling "Graphene"? It's some form of graphite. Define "structural difference," and provide some proof for your "resounding no." You're hung up on phrases like "marketing rocker," which does have a functional effect, it's just small. Which I've been saying all along. The definitions of a small difference and no difference seem elusive here, and I don't get why.
I would love to hear what the engineers are actually using. Let them speak! It might actually help the company. Instead of just creating suspicion about everything once again. Are they creating suspicion?
If that's cynical, sure it's cynical because the more you look, the less it makes sense. I mean a couple hours research and all the claims vanish into thin air. What exactly are they using? I don't know. I doubt the guy at the SIA show will know either though he'll throw around the word Graphene because it's cool for sure. I like the sound of it. I'd name a black lab or a gray dog "Graphene" now. It only makes less sense if you make a priori premises along the lines of "small impact = no impact," or " Graphene bonded to something else is not "Graphene," or "I can't figure this out, therefore it must be a lie."
The little ant that could. Holding 100x body weight while stuck to surface.
Photo Thomas Endlein, Univ of Glasgow
Copper Alloy with graphene: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/164961-graphene-used-to-make-graphene-copper-composite-thats-500-times-stronger
"So I think what you're saying is that Head's literally lying, and the stuff they're using in skis and racquets cannot be real Graphene. Just like KERS is a fake that does nothing, might as well be painted into the top sheet. Maybe. Again, I can't help but wonder how a Head engineer would respond."
Well "lying" is a strong term. "Blatantly misleading" would be better. Drop the "blatant" if it's offensive. Is a fashion shoot "lying" when they show an attractive model with barely a hint of the actual clothing? Have the courage of your arguments. Unless you want to explain how "blatantly misleading is different from lying, how "misleading" is different from blatantly misleading, and how a semi-naked model for a product is misleading at all. Misdirection, maybe?
For Graphene I'll take it that it's a blatant falsehood for now until proven other wise. Key to your assumptions: "They're lying until I can understand otherwise." For me, it's more like, "they have something small that they're trying to make a big deal about." It's something else related to Graphene. You're contradicting yourself here. If it's something else related to Graphene, then how is it blatantly misleading? Or at what point is Graphene not Graphene? On the other hand, one can make "Graphene" with a pencil and tape or a block of Graphite. It's not of much use structurally though. Is "much use" the same as "no use?"
Here's the extent of what Head says in their Graphenetm page. Not sure who owns that trademark.
(It appears the trademark is owned by LARRAÑAGA OTAÑO http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/graphene/010900645, but who knows, just a simple search.
"Graphene Skis" are trademarked by : Andrew Norrey. http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/graphene+skis/013528161
Maybe they're using Mesograf by Graphoid. http://www.grafoid.com/our-story/mesograf/
The problem is it's hard to get any real information on what exactly what Graphoid is making right now. Exactly. You don't know. Neither do I. But we come to different conclusions.
Some good basic info here on graphene video.
As for KERS, I'm not accusing Head of lying at all since it's real. I say "everybody", ok that's a stretch. Yep. Almost everyone I talk to though, most who even have the skis, call it "bullshi*". This despite you can actually see the chip on the ski. Probably this is partly due the K2 light experience, and the belief in ski salesmen as below that of used car salesmen. Here you're just showing your bias, which is fine, but don't pretend it isn't part of your argument. (sorry phil). And yes there's the fake KERS also, seen on the race skis where the chip is just a picture of the chip. Maybe this is part of the problem since it's obviously fake on the race skis many think the real thing is fake too. So Head might have a problem if people really cared. They don't. They care about the end result. So if there is an end result, which the reviewers seem to agree on, why is it so important whether this is "pure" Graphene or Graphene bonded to something else? Moreover, race skis, like pro racquets, often are "paint jobs," based on older and simpler technology, current top sheets. Some pro tennis players even have their racquets made to the same specs as a competitor's model. But everyone knows that. It doesn't drive people wild. Complicated why competitive gear is more conservative, but have been told it's more about what the user grew up with, biomechanical comfort zones when consistency = your livelihood, than marketing. Very similar IMO to how WC racers grab another pair of skis on the way to the cameras or podium, our discussions here of how "race stock" can mean a lot of different things.
KERS is not that much a different situation than K2 had with that vibration reducing technology that had the little light. That was real too but - "most" called it crap and bs. The little light that went on almost made it worse though you'd think it was a good idea because it showed something was going on. The light just made people focus on a useless little light so they declared it useless. Despite the real technology that was taken from uses such as gun sight vibration reduction in tanks. Cannot speak to the little light, but I'd guess that the mass of the little gizmo acted something like Volkl's UVO. Or Rossignol's old VAS plates. They work; I owned a bunch of Rossi's, and according to reviews of the Racetigers and friends who ski them. Not magic, very pedestrian physics, but a real effect.
As for testing the same skis by disabling these systems. Well, that's something that maybe a Ski testing mag might do, but that's beyond them at this point. Maybe back in the 80's they'd try it, but now they just want verbal descriptions, don't even put in the bad ones, and want pithy statements by cute testers and nice photos of said testers. It's also a bit unfair since the ski was designed with this stuff, so with it disabled presumably it would be a different ski. It would be interesting though.
Does any of this matter? I think so. When we start getting our science from Ski marketing companies and believing it we're in trouble. I agree to a point, but the inverse doesn't necessarily hold, that we can assume all science we find out via marketing is b.s. People don't know what to believe but a little critical thinking and research would help. Yet you're not exercising critical thinking as much as you're just assuming something and finding illustrations you think holds up your POV. That's scarcely scientific reasoning. So many people believe fake things are real and real things are fake. Mostly based on volume of what they hear. I've had way too many conversations with college kids who think "it's probable" we didn't go to the moon or we flat out didn't. Based on "it could be" from what they've heard, seen. When pressed they have no real information but have spent 10x as much time on conspiracy videos and theories as actual what happened research. Depressing. OK, fine, but what does this have to do with Graphene? Is interest in a technology the same as believing we didn't go to the moon? Aren't you overgeneralizing?
Here's to the naming of a pet "Graphene"! Extra bonus points for a child with that name.