Archive 1 | Archive 2 →
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Carbon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Carbon, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Bth and maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:58, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 21:26, 22 Jun 2005). Note: authoritative references for several infobox values (marked with question marks) are scarce and have not yet been fully integrated with the data pages. Femto 13:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the following paragraph: "In its amorphous form, carbon is essentially graphite but not held in a crystalline macrostructure. It is, rather, present as a powder which is the main constituent of substances such as charcoal and lamp black (soot)." My field of research is amorphous carbon (a-C), and we define it as an amorphous matrix containing sp2 and sp3 hybridized carbon atoms. Depending on the sp2-sp3 ratio it has varying hardnes, opacity and electrical resistivity. We can synthesize a-C films which are transparent and almost as hard as diamond. Nothing like graphite or charcoal and no powder. There is an article on our lab webpage  --Dschwen 21:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is graphity in the main definition line that I don't know how to delete. Sorry, I'm not logged in and so won't use my signiture, but I thought that someone would want to know about that and delete it.
is the third bullet relevenat as an allotropic form of carbon ?!--220.127.116.11 22:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
no comments?? maybe a yes or a no ...tip,hint!--18.104.22.168 14:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Crude oil VS petroleum :)
in the Applications section it is writte
but crude oil redirects me to article petrolium , does this make sence?!--22.214.171.124 15:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed mystery claim
This claim followed a dubious classification of allotropes. I have no idea which allotrope was supposedly discovered in 2004; all the listed ones seem to have been discovered long before. --Andrew 03:55, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Expansion and FA status
Just an FYI - I'm thinking about expanding this article offline starting sometime next week and then submitting it to WP:PR and then WP:FAC. Once I start editing, I'll leave a note here and in an edit comment at the top of the article in order to reduce the chance of somebody else performing a significant expansion at the same time (minor edits/expansions are fine since those are easy to incorporate into an offline forked version). -- mav 03:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I got distracted. Currently working on creating geology of the Delaware Basin. --mav 17:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Please, can you
- identify the carbon isotope used
- indicate the source for the statement
Jclerman 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- The only radioactive isotope of carbon with a half life longer than an hour is C-14, which emits a beta. A beta is too penetrating to be stopped by smoke, most detectors use Americium-241 which is an alpha emitter. IMHO the statement is not credible so I removed it. pstudier 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly feel there should be a reference to benzene rings with a link to that article because of the importance of these compounds.
The article describes Diamond "together with BN" as being the most resistant to scratching but the BN article states Diamond is harder than BN. Is this an error, or is hardness not the same as resistance to scratching?
The hot link for the word "tetravalent" is confusing, as it splits the word into two parts. Please either make a tetravalent article, or just link to valency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
- Fixed. Femto 10:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Recently, an editor using the IP address 188.8.131.52, has added various information about precautions in handling various forms of carbon, stating that the information is useful. This may be true, but the information certainly requires citations and careful inspection by various editors before being added. I'm also not sure that this content is encyclopedic: this is Wikipedia, not a handbook of industrial safety. Would anyone care to comment? Michaelbusch 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Quite simple, safety information does not belong in the wikipedia (per wp:not: not an instruction manual, no legal/medical advice). Specifically: some of the safety hazards named here are not specific on carbon (sharp edges on diamond .. ), some parts could be included when properly rewritten (physiological effects of carbon-dust on lungs). --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then, don't give any information so that it sounds like "advice." However, part of encyclopedic knowledge of a substance includes ways it can harm you if you do something particular with it (or has harmed others who did). But if you're writing so that it sounds like a safety manual, you're not writing in encyclopedic style. It's all a matter of degree. SBHarris 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)