Talk:Fullerene

Toys

Bucky balls were popular in the US a few decades back, and they continue to be sold as toys. See [[1]] for example. This should perhaps be a separate page. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1001.1182v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.219.252 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1001.1182v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.219.252 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not find what i was looking for

I came here looking for the toy Buckyballs... I cant seem to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrospark (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

This article needs to be protected urgently. Google features bucky balls on the front page. This is the first search result, so spammers cause vandalism. Protection needed at least for one day.--78.190.26.157 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering, is google really refering to fullerene with it's logo ? or is it an homage to the inventor of the architectural design ? this article says google refered to the molecule and the quote for that is a romanian newspaper article that talks about the wikipedia page, I think someone from that romanian newspaper edited the article to say google is refering to the fullerene molecule maybe google is not telling on purpose to find out how people are searching for the logos meaning ? -shodan 67.212.8.232 (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.162.80.211, 4 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please replace any "discovered" with "synthesized" or "invented"

the term "discovered" applies only to naturally occurring items. 94.162.80.211 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fullerenes occur naturally, and had been produced in space and on earth (in arc discharges, for example) for many decades. Thus Kroto et al. did not not really synthesize them - they, crudely speaking, separated them from a common discharge soot. Process optimization is essential only for the C60 yield. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

4 bondings of C

Hi. Could anyone explain what happens with the 4th Coal bounding? I can see that the coal uses only 3 in the Fullerens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.106.96 (talk • contribs)

Carbon forms double bonds in many organic compounds, including fullerene. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an explanation of this in the article as well... I find the levels of complexity of the article mixed. A simple introduction to the chemistry + a sketch of the actual bonds (double/single/aromacity) would be appropriate, I think. I still don't get where the double bonds are, if there are supposed to be three pr six atoms (eg. fullerene sheets of six-membered rings)! 77.212.171.42 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.164.110.157, 4 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add the word 'The' or 'An' in front of the word "Icosahedral" in the sentence:

Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure.

This will make the sentence above gramatically correct.

Corrected versions: The Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure. An Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure.

71.164.110.157 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Added the to the start of the sentence. --Stickee (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Safety and Toxicity

This part of the article doesn't say much on safety and toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.125.215 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Regarding this revert of mine, there are two issues: (i) combining images of species which have their own, well-developed articles, in the lead of fullerene does clutter it and leaves little space for text. (ii) The common understanding of carbon nanotubes is a rolled graphene sheet, not a fullerene blown into a tube. The relation between C60 and nanotube is only (well, I actually don't know this relation, even after studying them for long), maybe, in the extended pure carbon network. Going ad absurdum, we could add a dozen of chemicals with very similar structures to their leads, which does not seem constructive. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on the second concern first: I'm pretty sure that nanotubes are considered to be fullerenes too. Both this article and Carbon nanotube say that they are, however I noticed that these statements are unsourced. I don't have a nanotech reference book on me right now; I can probably look it up in the next few days. If nanotubes are not in fact considered fullerenes, then both of these articles will need to be revised.

As far as layout, I thought that showing a single example of each of the major classes of fullerene at the top would greatly clarify the subject to a reader unfamiliar with the field. Using a vertical rather than horizontal layout should reduce clutter/distortion of the lead text. Antony–22 (^talk/_contribs) 03:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that fullerenes are defined such that they include tubular structures, and this is a key point which needs proper, reliable references (not WP itself). In most labs, fullerenes are usually meant as globular structures, but some Britannica definition can beat this. Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, my apologies, please go ahead. Vertical design will push other pictures down too much, thus perhaps horizontal is better, but the right nanotube image was not using its space - I would crop and brighten it or find another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was thinking the same thing about the nanotube picture, there's probably a better one floating around Commons somewhere. I'll play around with the layout to get something that's more visually appealing. Antony–22 (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"fullerene" vs. "nanotube"?

"Nanobuds have been obtained by adding fullerenes to carbon nanotubes." As far as i can tell from the rest of the article, carbon nanotubes are fullerenes, so that statement makes no sense. Unfortunately, the main article on nanobuds has similar verbiage. Can someone more knowledgeable fix this, or at least leave some comments here? thaks Doceddi (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The terminology is misleading (to me) as most scientists do not mix nanotubes and fullerenes (meaning fullerenes=buckminsterfullerenes). Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"superaromacity"?

The article links the word "superaromacity" to the "aromacity" article... but in the "aromacity" article, superaromacity isen't mentioned! 77.212.171.42 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

solubility

Add solbility of C70, but the value between the two papers were different, thus only C70's added, C60's was not updated. (1) R. S. Ruoff; D. S. Tse; R. Malhotra et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN A VARIETY OF SOLVENTS", Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1993, 97, 3379. (2) N. Sivaraman; R. Dhamodaran; I. Kaliappan et. al., "SOLUBILITY OF C-60 IN ORGANIC-SOLVENTS", Journal of Organic Chemistry, 1992, 57, 6077. Topliuchao (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Excuse my ignorance, what's the source of this sentence "Some fullerene structures are not soluble because they have a small band gap between the ground and excited states." and there is no reference about this, and I have never heard anything about it. Could someone mention references for this one? Thank you. Topliuchao (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)