Talk:Allotropes of carbon
|WikiProject Elements||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|The content of Cubic carbon was merged into Allotropes of carbon. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for its talk page, see here.|
Carbines or something like that 
There are a lot of information in foreign languages that there are ...=C=C=C=C=...and ...—C≡C—C≡C—... fibers. How are they called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
Major editing 
In an effort to de-stub the article, I've pretty much made it a list of carbon allotropes with a few paragraphs ripped from their respective articles, but I've kept the comparisons the original contributor made at the bottom. Feel free to discuss any changes or points of contention with me. Jongpil Yun 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Question regarding this line (under Diamond): "Each carbon atom in diamond is covalently bonded to four other carbons in a tetrahedron." Even after looking up tetrahedron, I still couldn't tell if this is right. If each carbon atom is bonded to 4 others, aren't there then 5 atoms total? Is that still a tetrahedron? Or are there 4 carbons on each corner and one on the inside like methane? Gaviidae 16:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, just like methane, only instead of each hydrogen there's another carbon. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Atomic carbon? 
Graphene seems to be a newly discovered form of carbon. The article on "Graphene" says this form of carbon is not an allotrope because the sheets are of "finite" thickness. Like they could be anything else. Surely graphene is an allotrope and should be here or at least have an explanation of why it isn't.
I've linked this article here. Perhaps someone would like to start a section on this. --Rifleman 82 09:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Not Clear What an Allotrope and What a Variant 
Currently it's not clear what of the materials discussed is a basic allotrope and what a variant, and how many basic allotropes there are.
Some specific issues --
- Why do different shapes of fullerenes not qualify are distinct allotropes?
- Buckminsterfullerene is commonly described as the third allotrope of carbon discovered:
"For their discovery of the buckyball — the third form of pure carbon to be discovered after graphite and diamonds — Kroto and his Rice colleagues, Robert Curl Jr. and Richard E. Smalley, were awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1996."
-- and yet Lonsdaleite and Linear Acetylenic Carbon (and maybe others as I haven't read through carefully) seem to predate it here.
- The article states "Carbon nanofoam is the fifth known allotrope of carbon discovered in 1997" -- same issues with precedence.
Etc. The article should be organized to list the allotropes in order of discovery, with a statement giving the date and order -- "X was the third allotrope of carbon discovered, in DATE..."
BTW are newly synthesized forms (which have not been found to exist in nature) "discovered" or "invented" -- and can they be patented?
Carbyne Is Most Stable 
The most stable allotrope of carbon is NOT graphite. It is carbyne; it has smallest heat of combustion (lower than even that of graphite). I'll look up in tables. However graphite and diamond may transform into each other, carbyne doesn't participate (i.e. reactions are extremely slow). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Any information on a form called M-Carbon? If the article at http://news.yale.edu/2012/07/19/diamond-rough-half-century-puzzle-solved is correct, some of the comments on diamond are now incorrect (apparently the new form can damage diamond).
Link to better article: http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120719/srep00520/full/srep00520.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)