How the authors fixed the paper

44:25Especially because I mean reviewer two had like positive things to say and said that there is definitely a chance. I think if both editors, I mean if both reviewers were like no, >> Yeah, yeah. >> it would have been kind of that, right? So anyways, they did show the multiple directions, they showed that ABAB stacking and the hexagonal stuff. They also did this Rietveld analysis. This is a kind of computational trick where you say, okay, what if what if the sample is fully hexagonal or it's a mixture of hexagonal and cubic? >> Mhm. >> What would the theoretical distribution look like? >> Right. >> And then if I take a difference of the two, which model fits better? And the one that's purely hexagonal fits better than the one that's a mixture, okay? >> Yeah. >> So this is the analysis that reviewer one wanted. >> Yes.

45:05>> He got it. >> Yes. >> So the other thing, there's a question about uniformity. How uniform is the sample? >> Uh which is a good question. >> Which is a good question. So here they took 11 different random samples >> Mhm. >> of like a part of their sample >> Mhm. >> and they did X-ray diffraction on that >> Mhm. >> to show that the X-ray diffraction that comes out of whatever part of the sample is pretty identical. >> Wow, this is this is >> These are 11 different X-ray diffraction experiments, but they all look basically the same. Like the the spacing of the of the >> maxima of your X-ray diffraction is about the same. >> Yeah, and it's also just beautiful. >> Yeah, very beautiful. And the hexagonal structure that you see is indicative >> Yeah, like like you it's like I have

45:46never looked at that much extra crystallography or electron my scratch microscopy microscopy photography, but you can I can see the