Jump to content

Talk:Carbon fibers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

3D effect or depth effect

when carbon fibers are laquered a ed effect and a depth effect are there! it looks so amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2018 January 28 (UTC)

Disposal / Safety section needed

The title says it all. This section is needed especial because of the reference to asbestos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.237.7 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

... Search for disposal. It seems to be a safe enough material until broken or disposed. In manufacturing processes there should be appropriate air filtering both for employees and outgoing air to prevent possibility of asbestos like scenario. There appears to be some applications where safe disposal is, purely by my own common sense, impossible or too expensive to implement. Example: carbon fiber reinforced concrete. Seemingly fine application until you want to get rid of the building and the only way I can imagine of safe disposal is laser cutting the concrete or moving the whole concrete building to air tight disposal facility! Other disposal processes inevitably leak some fibers into air where they can cause electrical interference (src: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/TechNotes/TechNotes2003-11.pdf ) or just generally end up in the environment. From what I can tell they are not biodegradable, potentially hazardous to breath and light enough to not really fall in the ground, there really should be some oversight of what applications they are used for, so that recycled high end fiber product won't end up in eg. some building cement and pose a great problem in future when said building need to go down cheaply it either cannot or will do so at the cost of releasing the fibers to the air.

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-life-beyond-the-landfill.aspx

Suggests that the properties of recycled fibers are no longer good enough compared to using some cheaper materials. Until efficient recycling is possible the best approach is for manufacturers to try and come up with some standard parts for common products that could be reused after some soap+water processing rather than having to break the existing product into pieces affecting the strength or risking the release of fibers if not properly (expensively) done.

Also it says:

"In 2004, most European Union (EU) member states passed laws forbidding landfill disposal of composites. Further, incineration of plastics is suspect because of the potential release of toxic byproducts."

This makes it sound that if you have some consumer CFRP products they'd need to be specially disposed. How many know to do that and are there even proper processes in place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722620.stm

This news is on report from Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and says: "carbon nanofibres, whose constituent nanotubes have in preliminary laboratory experiments shown similar dangers to those of asbestos. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7408705.stm

"A recent study showed that when mice inhaled nanotubes they developed inflammation that peaked within seven days of exposure, and returned to normal within one or two months"

This article also says the "short tubes" didn't cause problem and this is because there are cells that can engulf them. However imagine if everything was done from nanotubes (if some cheap manufacturing process came available or the recycled stuff would replace accepted materials) ... the current approach seems to be "lets wait until it's all over the place and see if there were bad effects". If you create near-indestructible things that can spread in the air and causes health problems, I'm not sure people would vote to wait wait and see until it's too expensive/difficult/inconvenient to get a handle on the problem? There should be extensive trial runs in artificial environments before we have everything made from recycled carbon fiber. The point here is, even if the small tubes are safe(r), if it's not biodegradable it will accumulate over time and given that stuff will end up in China etc for cheap improper disposal I think it's best to keep the use of this tech at bay until proper tests (10+ years high dose release to artificial environment) is made. Climate change is normal, Carbon fiber-based climate isn't. And one is something that can be easily regulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 23:22, 2008 November 14 (UTC)

Biodegradable?

If it was soaked in water, would bacteria be able to eat the carbon fiber? Puddytang (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They possibly would, given very favourable circumstances. The answer is probably no until someone sees the need to develop/breed/GE bacteria that does this. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

name

"Carbon fiber" is not the name of the composite! See composite materials and GRP vz. fiberglass.

Egil 00:55 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. the whole carbon-fiber / crp / cfrp mess needs some also laminate and lamination. --Iediteverything 16:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing some information about the history of carbon fiber, but had a hard time finding anything on the web. According to this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3131165.stm

It was invented in by the RAE in Farnborough, Hampshire. It seems like it was developed in the 1960's and became commonly available in the 1990's, but I haven't found an authoritative source for that.

If wikipedia intends to spell everything in the English language, the american way then why isn't there two seperate languages on the toolbar on the left. To spell carbon fibre as "carbon fiber" in the English translation of this article frankly disgusts me. Sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.43.39 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Totally agree, i makes the whole thing very difficult to read. As its a British Invertion should it not use Fibre?(94.4.74.53 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Carbon Fibre was invented by Messrs; W. Watt, L. N. Phillips, and W. Johnson, at, as stated above, the RAE, Farnborough. It was first announced to the engineering industry in 1966 - see 1971 Flight article here; [1]
BTW, it was being used by BAE Warton in the Future European Fighter Aircraft (Fefa) in 1984 - see link to same magazine here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.54.192 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturing process

The article states that the mould for CRPs is first evacuated, then the epoxy is filled in. Is this correct ? I remember a process where first epoxy is filled in, then plastic sheets laid over the composite, then air drained below the plastic sheets , to remove superfluous epoxy and to increase the amount of fibre percentage in the composite.--Iediteverything 07:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are talking about vacuum bagging, while the process mentioned on the page is resin infusion [3] [4] or vacuum infusion. Vaccum bagging is a method to place pressure on the CFRP while the epoxy cures. With resin infusion, a refinement on vacuum bagging, the CF and form are layed out dry, which makes is it useful for large or complicated forms. The vacuum is created and used to suck resin into the bag, which serves the same purpose as in vacuum bagging (good fiber/resin ratio, etc.). So really the two methods are very similar and work the same way; the main difference is how and when the resin is applied. Resin infusion is a bit newer and vacuum bagging seems more common, so I guess both methods should be mentioned. That paragraph needs to be worked over anyway. PlatinumX 09:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's no mention of pre-impregnated (pre-preg) material, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2005 February 1 (UTC)

The "See also"s

What's with these lks? Why shouldn't they just be dumped? If there's a reason, why can't they become inline links instead of non sequiturs? 

== See also ==
They are analogous materials, basically included as a navigational aid. Someone might be interested in composite materials in general, and not have a tabbed browser. This allows them to move on to the next one when they finish reading this article. Perhaps we can do without the graphite link, though...I'll go ahead and remove it, but I won't object if someone puts it back.--Joel 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a tabbed browser: i have a Back tool built in to my browser, and when i want to backtrack and branch, that's what i do rather than plan on some editor guessing at where i want to go next.
Readers come to this article not primarily from any one place such as Graphite-reinforced plastic or whatever page you're thinking of, but from about 100 different pages. I came to it from Yo-Yo Ma, so for me the related material is Wood. I'm not about add Wood to the see alsos, but IMO the 3 existing ones are as bad an idea as the explicitly deprecated scheme of trying to outthink the reader by deciding Argentina/Transportation is a good title because people who read it want to know other things about Argentina (and not about transportation), and the cure is to ditch the entire section.
--Jerzy·t 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw it as serving the same purpose as the failure modes sidebar in buckling, corrosion, thermal shock etc. In fact, I think we should have a {{structural composite materials}} template (including wood!) for this kind of thing, but if "see also"s are not a good way to accomplish this, so be it. It's a higher priority for me to relink all those "carbon fiber" links to graphite reinforced plastic where appropriate, but perhaps some time I'll put in the effort to make a good template.--Joel 22:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

carbon fibre vs nanotubes

obvious question: what is the difference between the two? is it simply that fibres are a graphite-like sheet and tubes are a graphite-like tube? does that difference really affect the properties so much? mastodon 20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


answer while the fibers are alternate layers of graphite, not necessarily rolled up, the nanotubes are little compose pipes from sheets of closed graphite on if same and all forms an only separate molecule. they're more resistant and some are supercondutors. translated frame from the Italian


In solid state chemistry structure is king. Yes, it does make such a difference. There is a series of excellent MIT lectures (SS-Chem 309.1) on YouTube if you want to know all the details and have a few days to spare.--194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lighter than aluminum, stronger than steel?

ive heard of this but its not mentioned on this page how its strength and weight compare to steel and aluminum. anyone know?

Sahuagin 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand why people don't run a spell check or other basic grammar service before they post. Stackleschwien 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people would go around policing the internet for grammar and spelling, completely ignoring the perfectly understandable question that the guy asked. Try not being such an asshat if your have the maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papajohnin (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The page on tensile strength has details on the subject. Different alloys of aluminium and steel can approach CF in strength, but not even maraging steel exceeds it. You can put so much epoxy in CF that it becomes heavier than steel of comparable strength or leave it out completely, but aside from these extremes CF always beats the metals. --194.251.142.28 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Epoxy Boards

Should be Glass-Epoxy boards. Epoxy, Polyester and Vinylester resins can be used in carbon fibre laminates. The author refers to the use of carbon versus glass as the fibre component of the composite materials.

Feuser 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

Do instruments made of carbon fiber instead of wood make different sounds? Does a carbon fiber bow, used with a normal wooden instrument, produce different sounds? LordAmeth 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fire rating of Carbon Fiber aircraft components v's aluminium components.

Can anyone give enlightenment on this topic? 203.128.81.210 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Structure and properties

"It has high electrical and low thermal conductivity."

It has high electrical conductivity.

This can not be right? Carbon Fibre is used as an insulator so how can it have high electrical conductivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.231.230 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes, carbon has always been a conductor (some say a semiconductor) used in the manufacturer of resistors and other electronic components (at least since the 1920s).

The thickness of pure carbon and its level of impurities changes its resistance. When you cover it with epoxy or other resins, only then can it be used as an insulator.

I have seen carbon fiber reinforced insulators where fiberglass was not strong enough for the job, but alone, it will conduct. --X42 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

from old article( not sure where this belongs)

Non-polymer materials can also be used as the matrix for carbon fibers. Due to the formation of metal carbides (i.e., water-soluble AlC), bad wetting by some metals, and corrosion considerations, carbon has seen limited success in metal matrix composite applications; however, this can be improved by proper surface treatment, e.g., for carbon-aluminium MMCs a vapor deposition of titanium boride on the fibers is often employed. Reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) consists of carbon fiber-reinforced graphite, and is used structurally in high-temperature applications, such as the nose cone and leading edges of the space shuttle.

The fiber also finds use in filtration of high-temperature gases, as an electrode with high surface area and impeccable corrosion resistance, and as an anti-static component in high-performance clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.90 (talk) 13:27, 2007 November 7 (UTC)

Micron or Micrometer?

Working in a communications field, we've always used the term "Micron" when referring to billionths of a meter. I've come to understand that in general practice this has become an archaic term now. I changed "5-8 micrometers" under "Structure and properties" to "5-8 microns" partially because the "micrometer" portion linked to the tool and not the unit of measurement. Aside from the link being incorrect, I understand that I may be in the wrong on this change and would like some feedback. Crmadsen (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed micron is still in wide use, but is incorrect, as you yourself state. The problem here is that micrometer links to the insturment and micrometre links to the measurement. Its a UK vs US spelling difference (and should probably be addressed with a single disambiguation page rather then different spellings leading to different articles). Since this particular article uses US spelling throughout, it was linked to the wrong article, I changed it back to read micrometer but link to micrometre and removed your change to micron. Russeasby (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I neglected to mention I work in a MILITARY communications field, we're chock full of archaic terms. I probably should have made the fix you suggested, thank you for the feedback. 153.29.46.60 (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well "micron" and "micrometer" or "micrometre" both mean one millionth of a meter. AFAIK "micron" has NEVER meant a billionth of a meter in archaic communications or anywhere else.220.239.190.75 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Micron has always been a term to indicate a micrometer that (believe it or not) is still in use in some fields, despite the fact it is frowned upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron EDIT: I see what you're saying, that was my mistake; pardon. I hear "billionths of a meter" so often it just sticks.Crmadsen (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I work in physics research - I use the term micron in conversation to avoid confusion with the measurement tool. For example, the term 10 micron laser is frequently used for a CO2 laser of wavelength 10.6μm. When writing I would use μm to avoid any confusion (although being from the UK, this should not happen, as we spell it micrometre (for the measurement).

All chemistry, physics, and engineering researchers I have had contact with use the term micron. most of these people got their phds in the 1990s or earlier. most of these people use the term because they learned it back in the 1960s,70s and 80s or learned it from their old advisers and colleagues. 13.43, 30th June 2011 (UTC)

Consistency

I think the article would flow much better if the entire thing was fiber or fibre as opposed to switching back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.212.24 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Much as it pained me, being a true Brit, I've changed all instances (I hope!) to fiber. the wub "?!" 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


What is the wiki regulation on US vs British spelling? If you are a Brit, why didn't you change them all to 'fibre' so as not to pain yourself? 124.176.224.97 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Competition" sport?

"The properties of carbon fiber such as high tensile strength, low weight, and low thermal expansion make it very popular in aerospace, military, and motorsports, along with other competition sports."

Isn't the word "competition" tautological here? Or is there some specific meaning of the phrase "competition sports" intended?

A more specific phrase might be preferable. eg Mind Sports would seem to come under the general heading of "competition sports", yet this whole category has little use for carbon fibre.

81.86.230.24 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its referring more to top level sport as at recreation level carbon fiber equipment may not by financially viable (Crictv69 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Manufacturers vs equipment for manufacturing Carbon fiber

The section on Manufacturers, which was those who made carbon fibers, had this added:

Carbon Fiber Plant Design and Equipment Manufacturer:
Harper International Corporation

I've removed it as being outside the scope of that section. Are there any other articles that it should be in instead? ChemGardener (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed: graphitic/turbostratic

The atomic structure of carbon fiber is similar to that of graphite, consisting of sheets of carbon atoms (graphene sheets) arranged in a regular hexagonal pattern. The difference lies in the way these sheets interlock. Graphite is a crystalline material in which the sheets are stacked parallel to one another in regular fashion. The chemical bonds between the sheets are relatively weak Van der Waals forces, giving graphite its soft and brittle characteristics. Depending upon the precursor to make the fiber, carbon fiber may be turbostratic or graphitic, or have a hybrid structure with both graphitic and turbostratic parts present. In turbostratic carbon fiber the sheets of carbon atoms are haphazardly folded, or crumpled, together.

The difference between graphite and turbostratic carbon fibre is clear. However, the difference between graphite and graphitic carbon fibre is not. The article does not explain how the carbon sheets are arranged in graphitic carbon fibre, so, based on the word "graphitic", one can only assume that they are arranged in the same way as in graphite. But in that case, graphitic carbon fibre would appear to be identical to graphite. Is that true? If not, what's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.241.197 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Twisted together to form a yarn?

The current article states that "Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric." Would someone like to explain this sentence? I have never seen or heard of a twisted yarn. The yarns I am familiar with are strategically placed as straight as they can be. Any amount of twist would be a defect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.209.132 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Brap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.233.25 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have practically no experience with carbon fiber yarn. However, I do know how to Google, and so I found these references to a search for carbon fiber yarn:

  • "Several thousand carbon fibers are twisted together to form a yarn, which may be used by itself or woven into a fabric." -- http://www.zoltek.com/carbonfiber/
  • "carbon fiber yarns which comprise an intimate association of carbon fibers ... transforming said long fibers on standard spinning equipment ... the fibers are twisted together" -- United States Patent 4825635
  • "Carbon fiber filaments are finer than a human hair. These filaments are bundled together to make a fiber of 3,000, 6,000 or 12,000 filaments which is called a "tow". The tow is sized with an epoxy compatible material to improve the handling characteristics." -- http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/yarntow.php

So, 2 of these 3 specifically mention "twisted" and "yarn". The third mentions a "tow", leaves me wondering -- is a yarn is made out of a bunch of "tow", or is a "tow" and a "yarn" are the same thing, or is perhaps a "yarn" is twisted but a "tow" is not twisted? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"... type I and II carbon fibres."

I read a journal [1] mentioning "... type I and II carbon fibres." So far, no mention about the types here, yet. Could anyone elaborate on that? Thanks. Kerina yin (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ WJ Cantwell, J Morton (1991). "The impact resistance of composite materials -- a review". Composites. 22 (5): 347–62. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(91)90549-V.
There's some references to the two types (Type I and Type II) in this 1970 Flight International article here: [5] - one is high stiffness, the other is high tensile strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fiber

It seems clear to me that the word "fiber" in the name "carbon/graphite fiber" is just the generic word, and hence has the alternative spelling "fibre" - is it really necessary to clutter up the intro with this? Brian Jason Drake 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it called Fibre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregas485 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis Section

if accuracy, completeness are desired, rather than simple casual explanations, then 2 points MUST be made:

1) industrially produced carbon fibers, when analyzed under a TEM, are composed of a variety of carbon structures. you will find graphene sheets of irregular size and shape, partially formed buckyballs, partially formed or uncapped nanotubes, nitrogen and oxygen defects, and even small amounts of tetrahedral 4 coordinate carbons (diamond carbons).... all of these structures will be found in varying concentration and in varying size. some will be formed in very small concentrations (like diamond carbons), others will be formed in high concentrations. there are no incredibly long/wide graphene sheets that traverse the entire length of a carbon fiber (which can be milimeters or centimeters in unbroken length)

2) van der waals bonds are extremely important in carbon materials like carbon fiber. as I pointed out, the overall structure is NOT continuously covalently bonded. there is no single chain of covalent bonds from one end of a carbon fiber to the other... but rather overlapping structures of various shape and size. thus the bonding between these discrete structures are incredibly important for describing their mechanical properties

what you must understand is that basic van der waals forces are not the only thing going on here. because essentially 100% of the carbon structures of interest in these materials are composed of AROMATIC SYSTEMS, there are also significant forces due to so called "pi stacking" interactions. these interactions signficantly increase the intramolecular (and even intermolecular) forces inside the matierial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.52.200 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed missing step in synthesis: spinning of precursor polymer

Fixed big assumption in synthesis: the section was missing the step that the precursor, at least rayon or PAN, is first spun into fibers. Somehow it seemed that all you had to do was heat up a lump of rayon or PAN and carbon fibers popped out. Oh well. Referenced to manufacturing process on zoltekcom's site, but would like to find a better reference. Woodega (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

history section lacking

The history section keeps talking about British attempts to stay ahead of foreign manufacturers, but never goes into any detail on those foreign manufactures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.176.149 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

history section - wrong linking

In "In 1958, Dr. Roger Bacon created high-performance..." the link to Roger Bacon links to the historical person, not the scientist. Is there a wiki on the scientist at all? 130.225.198.198 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Delinked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions on export

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/U/US_CARBON_FIBER_ARREST?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Carbon Fibre Masculinity: disability and surfaces of homosociality

Re [6]

Should the Hickey-Moody paper [7] be included? This is an unusual sociological paper whose thesis is that CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct.

I'm inclined to include this. I don't especially like this paper: it assumes, without basis, that homosociality is inherently misogynistic and relies on this assumption heavily to draw its conclusions; it also conflates disability with handicap as both being social constructs, against the conventionally accepted social model of disability. However I am interested to see this correlation between cf and misogyny drawn out in a RS source (Hickey-Moody is an academic at Goldsmiths, publishing in a WP:N journal). It is not rocket science to regard CF as a signifier of "boys toys". There is a vast marketing culture devoted to this, to non-functional and skeumorphic levels. Hickey-Moody is merely taking that to a further level. One does not have to agree with the conclusions of this paper to see it as a valid opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There are also "academics" who publish creationist drivel in creationist "journals." Do they deserve to have their point of view on the radioisotope dating article?
Does Alan Sokal's infamous deconstruction of quantum gravity hoax belong in the quantum gravity article simply because it was in a postmodernist journal?
I'm not well enough versed in wiki standards to state them, but surely, there must be something preventing the anthropomorphization of material substances on their main page, lest we also get the argument that ABS plastic is white supremacist and refractory ceramics are black nationalist. Don't even get me started on the biphobic implications of magnesium alloys.129.65.78.29 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to exclude it. The view that "CF is misogynistic, either inherently or as a social construct" may be noteworthy in an article on gendered materials or masculinity and homosociality, but in this article it is fringe. Also, the specific text in question is misleading. What will the average reader think of "has been linked to acts of misogynistic aggression"? Not what it actually means. Srnec (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be included. It seems wholly inappropriate to include - fringe and non-noteworthy. When you look at it closely, it is essentially off topic, not really about carbon fibers, but rather about society, anyway. Deli nk (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The paper is near-incomprehensible rubbish. Anyone could make a similar "argument" about the connection between any material and either masculinity or femininity. Don't include this gobbledygook. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon fibers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-RM proposals for a WP:CONCEPTDAB page

So, how about it? The MR closed with a suggestion to pursue that angle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_fibers/Archive_1&oldid=1240723670"