This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I am trying to understand the extent of Kroto's recent debunking of "carbyne". He obviously accepts the reality of polyyines of Chalifoux & Tykwinski (2010, 2x24 carbons) but it seems he denies those of Lagow, Kampa &al. (1995, 300 carbons) as being fullerenes and other stuff. Right?
What about the claims of Cataldo (1999)? If the products of Glaser's reaction are polyacetylide anions instead of neutral carbon, would that exempt them from Kroto's anathema? There are plenty of examples of unstable neutral molecules that are stable as anions. Would it be plausible that only two negative charges suffice to stabilize Cataldo's very long (400-500 atom) polyacetylide anions? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Surely this line: "However its existence in condensed phases has been contested recently, as such chains would crosslink exothermically (and perhaps explosively) if they approached each other." from the introduction contradicts this line: "The material is stable at room temperature, largely resisting crosslinks with nearby chains." from the Properties section. Which is correct?Fork me (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It suggests that contestors are wrong, but its not quite inconsistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)