Talk:Carbon nanotube/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Optical Properties

What are the optical properties of nano tubes? -- 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

-- I recall reading something a year or so ago about the darkest material on Earth being made of carbon nanotubes (link) -02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Jawz101 (talk)jawz101

GA Review 2

I'm making notes as I review the article for GA. Please feel free to start addressing these at any time, either by explanation here or by editting the article.

  1. It would be helpful if chemical bond were included in the proce of the lead so readers don't have to go to Sp2 if they don't know that Sp2 and Sp3 are types of chemical bonds. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed
  2. First instance of graphene is not wikilinked.Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Was fixed
  3. Why no reference citation for the 1952 Radushkevich and Lukyanovich paper? Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Was fixed
  4. Some citations (E.g. 2 and 5) occur in the middle of a paragraph. What about the rest of the paragraph - is it covered by the same reference or is it uncited? If it is covered by the same reference you should move the reference to the end of the paragraph. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed, it seemed that they covered the whole paragraph
  5. "The discovery of nanotubes remains a contentious issue, especially because several scientists involved in early nanotube could be likely candidates for the Nobel Prize." - does not sound grammatically correct to me. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Changed it a bit, don't know if it's better now?
  6. Carbon 44, 1621, 2006. - cite in same style as other references Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed
  7. Single-wall section - I made it through this section, but it took some work. Can it be made any easier? By comparison, the multi-walled section is much easier to read. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Could you try to explain which parts you find difficult?
  8. "Single-walled nanotubes are still very expensive to produce,..." - could you quantify this? At least roughly? Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed, but could only find a price from 2000
  9. (0,8) single-walled nanotube - does that mean 8/10 of a nanometer? Or does that refer back to the (n,m) terminolog of the graphene sheet? I don't think this notation has been introduced for the nanotubes itself. This nomenclature should be explained please. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Seems like it was fixed
  10. The interlayer distance is close to the distance between graphene layers in graphite - which is how much? Is this true for both Russian Dolls and Parchment? Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed, concerning your question I'm pretty sure that the distance is the same.
  11. "...while improving significantly their chemical resistance." - what is "chemical resistance? Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Reworded it, as far as I'm concerned chemical resistance is the resistance to various chemicals
  12. Tourus - "many" is un-needed Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed
  13. Properties section - very good! Very easy to read. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Fixed :-)
  14. Defects - needs more references Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Found one
  15. "Some defect formation in armchair-type tubes (which are metallic) can cause the region surrounding that defect to become semiconducting." I don't understand this sentence. Is it trying to say armchair-type tubes (as opposed to zig-zag type tubes) are metallic? How is that so since they are both carbon? - Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Fixed, not in the sense that it is a metal, but that it can conduct electricity
  16. Please look for additional wikilinks that could be added. Some suggestions: centimeter, vacuum, amp, microscopic, macroscopic Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Added some
  17. Of the various means for nanotube synthesis, CVD shows the most promise for industrial scale deposition in terms of its price/unit ratio. - this paragraph needs a citation Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Fixed
  18. There is a citation-needed tag in the article that needs addressing Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - Removed it as it already has a couple of references which I deem are good enough
  19. (The Space Elevator, by Brad C. Edwards, NASA) - cite like the other in-line sources, please. Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Fixed
  20. Nanoelectromechanical Systems (NEMS) section is very short. Can it be expanded or else merged somewhere else?Fixed
  21. Nice images!
  22. Generally good references but some (2, 4, 6, 10, 53,...) are not in the same style as the others. I recommend using {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.

I think it is a nice article. A little difficult at times perhaps. Informative definitely. A few issues as noted above. If you think you can tackle all or most of these leave me a message and I will come by to take another look. A word of warning - I tried to be thorough the first time through but I reserve the right to make additional comments on a second pass if they jump out at me. Good luck and please keep up the good work. You are almost there and Wikipedia needs more good articles on important topics such as this. Johntex\talk 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -

Hmm I managed to add more references so I can't see which of them that are problematic now :) Snailwalker | talk 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should NOT get GA. Its not that the stuff put here isn't correct, or well written. Its more that the subject itself is so early in development that its not a stable science at the moment. For example, I just heard about the first ISO for nanotube analyticals coming out in rough draft form. No one really knows that much about defined metrics surrounding the material, at best their metrics are simplistic (raman) or unidentified/proprietary. That's a baby as far as I am concerned.

What this leads to is a mixture of audience of professionals interested in the science, and hobbyists interested in the science. And there is nothing wrong with that, nanotubes very well may change the face of materials science in the next decade. But it means that it exists in a void where there is a lot of pop-science style information (aka sexy, but not really important, like Paris Hilton), and not a lot of the really important information, some of which is being protected at the moment by the people that have discovered it, or simply not known.

<insert> don't be a hater! <insert>

In response to some specifics that you labeled, as these can for the most part be adressed.

1) Not sure what "proce lead" means, so what I say may be inferring the wrong thing from your request. I think that this article has two types of readers, professionals and hobbyists. A professional chemist should know instantly what Sp2 means. A professional engineer should have the desire to look it up, because its important to understand it, and engineers are nothing if not link clickers. Hobbyists may just want that to say "chemical bond" but you have to ask who this is for? When it comes to scientific topics for work the first place I check is wikipedia, then I move on from there. I think most scientists will agree that they want pure unadulterated information, much like you have on things like "heat capacity" or "bulk density". I appreciate the desire for accessibility for hobbyists, but its not that hard for them to figure out what Sp2 is, and really its not that important (for them). If we were to take every scientific term in a wiki article and define it, their practical usefulness to scientists would be non-existent. That is my overlong reasoning for saying "no".

5) From the papers I have read its standard to read it as (n,m). I'm not exactly sure how you could derive a fractional diameter from that.

6)For the first question see 1. Its not hard to look up. The second question, however, I think definitely needs to be answered.

11) This issue has a lot to do with what is so difficult about nanotubes in general. Molecules of this size almost never exist, and when they do (like proteins), they aren't homogenous, and almost entirely structurally identical. Basically this is an entirely new field of chemistry (hence the Nobel Prizes). This is why you can have things like a partially metallic, partially semi-conducting molecules. Its not the atomic makeup that defines their difference, its the structure, which is so large, and so varied from tube to tube, that they are damn near impossible to define isomerically like you could some small organic. This is something I am not entirely clear on, but I hope I answered your question by the situation more confusing.

15) This is in a pop-mechanics article. I will post a citation here tommorow when I find it, its in my office somewhere.

I hope this helped somewhat. Some of my answers are POV (like gear it more towards professionals). I wish you good luck on this -Hellkyte

GA failed

It's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold and issues relating to the original reviewer's comments still exist. Please re-read his commentary and the comments left by others, and use it as constructive criticism to improve upon the article. Do try again when you have everything sorted. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello, I got a message that the aritcle has been greatly improved. I will happily review it again. I will do that this week unless someone else reviews it first. Best, Johntex\talk 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


The melting point given appears low. This article says

"The temperature stability of carbon nanotubes is estimated to be up to 2800 degrees Celsius in vacuum and about 750 degrees Celsius in air."

The Carbon pages says

"At atmospheric pressure it has no actual melting point as its triple point is at 10 MPa (100 bar) so it sublimates above 4000 K. Thus it remains solid at higher temperatures than the highest melting point metals like tungsten or rhenium, regardless of its allotropic form."

The two articles need reconciling. Either the same temperature needs giving or possibly a description of the effects of temperature instability. Andrew Swallow 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about apples and oranges. Comparing elemental carbon and carbon nanotubes is like talking about soot and diamond. They are massively different.

Plus the listed thermal stability is not the melting point, its the chemical stability, meaning that you can burn tubes @750C. Which isn't even correct. Nanotubes burn/oxidize over a wide temperature range based on structure, which includes but is not limited to 750C. I also definitely believe that any specific temperature about the melting point information about nanotubes is highly proprietary at the moment.

Also, I seriously question making a generalized statement about the power transmission capabilities of nanotubes. Yet again, this is dependent on structure. -Hellkyte

Since this is a scientific article should all the temperatures be given in Kelvin or should they follow the source they were cited from?--EpicWizard 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the key point is that the nanotube structure will become compromised at a much lower temperature than the vaporization of carbon. This may or may not involve "burning", i.e. bonding with ambient molecules of air or anything else. It could just mean rearrangement of the hexagonal grid into something less regular. Carl Ponder (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The "one-dimensional" nonsense is back

The GA review said that needed to go, it's back, and hmm, the article failed GAC. The gist: If it's a tube, that by definition means it is three-dimensional, even if I'd need one heck of a miscroscope to actually look inside a real one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 10:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are taking "one-dimensional" too literally. It is one-dimensional in the sense that it only grows to arbitrary lengths in one direction. Similarly, people sometimes refer to graphite sheets and similar structures as "two-dimensional", despite them having nonzero thickness. Itub 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
See for example all the scientific articles found by Google Scholar that refer to nanotubes as "one-dimensional". [1] --Itub 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the main goals of Wikipedia is clarity. Obviously, CNTs are not literally one-dimensional, any more than an atom is zero-dimensional. However, they are so tiny on the two dimensions perpendicular to their length that they are "practically" one-dimensional - at the least, they are the closest thing to a real, physical, one-dimensional object observed to exist (afaik). This quality is, in itself, interesting and perhaps worth mentioning in the article, but care should be taken to avoid confusion. You suggest McCandlish is being too literal, but the info on wikipedia should be literally true, or the criteria and context in which it is true must be made clear. To simply say that nanotubes are one-dimensional, even with the vague qualifier "essentially," is potentially misleading to the less scientificly literate audience. Perhaps less objectionable would be something like this (new text in italics):
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are allotropes of carbon. A carbon nanotube is a one-atom thick sheet of graphite (called graphene) rolled up into a seamless cylinder with diameter of the order of a nanometer. The extreme length-to-diameter ratio, which can exceed 10,000:1, results in a structure which is macroscopic in only one dimension. Such cylindrical carbon molecules have novel properties that make them potentially useful in a wide variety of applications in nanotechnology, electronics, optics and other fields of materials science. They exhibit extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties, and are efficient conductors of heat. Inorganic nanotubes have also been synthesized.
I think this version would be more factually correct, and might satisfy both sides, but I'd still question if the point is worth making at all. It's a bit interesting, perhaps, but it also seems a bit obvious, and it's a bit of a logical dead-end. Goph42 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a better wording would be to say "they have a large length to width ratio" instead of saying one-dimensional. Ergzay 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"One dimensional" is a scientific term referring to the fact that the transport properties of carbon nanotubes (specifically for heat and charged particles) occur only in one dimension, like a geometric line. Fullerenes are referred to as zero dimensional, (geometric point). Graphite is 2D (planar) and diamonds are 3D (cubic). Source: Saito, R., G. Dresselhaus, and M.S. Dresselhaus. Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotunes. London: Imperial College Press, 1998. Section 1.2.5 and Table 1.1. This information is a way of classifying carbon nanotubes and should be included in the article. Perhaps under a separate heading would be appropriate. Torris 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I infer from the silence on this matter that there are no objections to adding an appropriate section on the geometrical classifications of carbon nanotubes? Torris 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Torris is absolutely correct. What he writes is a fundamental point of view that all physicists know and understand. I have been to a tremendous amount of conferences etc. that mention the 1 dimentionallity of nanotubes. It is even taught in every Nanotechnology course and solid state physics course as well. This article is not complete without this info. - Dr. Jay

Try calling "1 dimensional nanotubes" a nickname and warn that it is an approximation. Like all approximations there are times when the true shape has to be used.
Andrew Swallow (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Andrew, this is not correct. While nanotubes are physically 3D structures their electrical transport is 1D. Current can only go along the tube, in either the positive or negative direction. This is unlike a wire, for example, where current could go along the length of the wire or across the diameter (though no one really runs current across the diameter of a wire). Because of quantum mechanics, current cannot flow across the diameter of a nanotube. Dr. Jay is right on. Ganaren (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that some researchers exclusively work with thin tubes (~1 nm) and others with MWNTs (tens nanometers) which are very different in electronic properties. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

base ball bats?

should it be mentioned that carbon nanotubes are used in easton stealth baseball bats? -- 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This information could be added under a summary of applications, but it would be nice to know what the CNTs function is in baseball bats. Torris 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SWNT lengths incorrect

It is stated that SWNTs can be made up to centimeters length, with a reference to Zhu et al. The article (Direct Synthesis of Long Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Strands), is about strands of SWNT's, not single SWNT's. Eamelink 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect length. A correct reached length is still needed. Eamelink 09:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanotubes as filters

The article states that nanotubes have an approximate diameter of 3.5 to 70 microns and elsewhere on Wikipedia it states that water molecules are around 500 Å or 0.05 microns in diameter. Solutes such as Sodium Chloride are much larger. I cannot see how large they are but if they are larger than the pore size of carbon nanotubes, imagine being able to make them in sheets with the tubes aligned perpendicularly to the surface of the sheet.

If this were so, under low pressures the water would "fall" through the nanotubes but the larger solute molecules would remain behind, trapped by the meshwork of opened nanotubes and carried away by a slow flow down the structure. We then have the basis for an alternative to reverse osmosis and the benefit of not having to apply large amounts of energy to get the job done.

I would be interested to know about the relative sizes to see if this has any applicability. I appreciate that the next major step of making sheets of nanotube carbon would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. No harm in asking however. Medfront 09:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the diameter of CNTs are on the order of a few angstroms (10-10 meters), not microns. Microns are on the order of 10-6 while nanotechnology is a thousand times smaller at 10-9 meters. This should be researched and the article edited for accuracy. Torris 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The idea you are suggesting about filters is a brilliant one - but already exists (good job though!) Its being researched as a way to desalinate water AND generate electricity at the same time!! And yes nanotubes have diameters on the order of 10-100 angstroms not micrometers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanotubes are generally referred to be in the 1-100 nanometer (nm) range. Some of the best filters being developed (Seldon Technologies e.g.) are approximately 30 nm diameter MWNTs. Nanotube sheets are made all kinds of ways. Definitely possible. Millions of dollars are invested into making nanotube sheets. One very interesting method can be found by looking at Ray Baughman's work at University of Texas at Dallas (UTD), but their is a lot of other good work going on as well. - Dr. Jay


Section on Nano-Knots was removed because it is not a "type" of nanotube. A nano-knot is just a thread made from single walled nanotubes, which is then knotted. Nano-knots may fit better into applications.

splitting hairs: m,n or n,m

I know very little about this subject, having to take a basics course in it and noticing wikipedia calls the chiral vector (n,m), while all other literature I've consulted uses (m,n) to denote the chiral vector... which was a bit miss-leading for me... Not that it has much practical difference, but...but... oh well :) Gillis 20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

business overview

Would like to see an overview of current state of business activity in the space. Either written as a sub-article (preferred) or at least a bibliographic reference to a suitable analyst report or the like. Looking for a description of "who's who" in the zoo. Extent and types of venture capital investment and typical valuations. How much activity is academic versus small company versus large company. Something that's an overview and encyclopedic. Not just random snippets of a few companies that are in the space or comments on cost of production.

From what I have read online and elsewhere (not being involved in this field myself) it seems that development in this area is a purely scientific endeavor at the moment. This is probably due to the difficulty of getting a definite return on an investment when you don't know if the research you are investing in is going to produce something even remotely viable or not. As for costs of production... we don't even have a reliable way to manufacture a size able quantity of nanotubes yet (to the best of my knowledge).--EpicWizard 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Claims of 20Gpa material based on C nanotubes

I've seen claims appearing in several places on the web that a Cambridge team has produced isolated macroscopic fibers of 20Gpa in strength. One example is this blog, another is this blog. If true this is a substantial achievement. I found this article in the BBC but annoyingly it does not address the actual tensile strength achieved. I'm not sure what can be put up yet. It seems that these (the blogs that is) are not reputable sources but there might be other sources I've missed. Barnaby dawson (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nanotube Torus-- Does it exist?

The section on nanotori says they are "theoretically described," but does not clearly indicate whether they have been actually synthesized/isolated in real life. Are the "unique properties" ascribed to the nanotorus experimentally determined, or theoretically predicted? Mayanscientist (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stable nanotorus structures have been simply theoretically predicted but no one experimental synthesis has been reported in the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

People have made circles on nanotube ropes. Whether that qualifies, I suppose it depends on your definition. Some are out in literature, other work it coming out. Mathematicians are not real fond of the term. Nanorings would be more accurate. Unfortunately I think that ship has already sailed.

nanotube actuators.

There seems to be a lot of research involving using carbon nanotubes as electromechanical actuators. Basically layering them for use as super strong artificial muscle fiber. Unfortunately most of the information about them is behind pay walls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. There are articles, and there are many many theses if you care to look. They are too fringe at this point to be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro section typo?

From the intro section, is "10,00,000" a mistake? Seems like an odd number format for one million, should it be ten million?

Cheers, (Tommfuller (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)).

Simple beginning

There is a lot of interesting information about microscopic structure of nanotubes. But there is no introductory information about they appearance and bulk properties - they are a substance, after all. Does anybody know whether they look like long grey metallic pipes, like colourless crystals or like green powder? Pomimo (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To the eye, they look like black (dull or dark depending on the type of CNT product) powder. Or black sheets in the case of CNT forests. Think of them as tiny carbon fibers, because that is what they essentially are. - Dr. Jay

Is (10,0) illustration correct?

It seems like a (14,0) nanotube in the picture (with the black backround)? Or am I counting wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogan79 (talkcontribs) 11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Real Images vs Illustrations

The article shows a lot of illustrations of various aspectrs of carbon nanotubes, but not a single "real" image from a high resolution microscope (TEM, SEM or possibly AFM). I think it would benifit from such an image, if anybody has one.-- (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could submit some real images of CNTs if you guys would like. I can do SEM, TEM, and AFM; SWNTS and MWNTs. Just tell me where to upload them, and do they need to be a certain file size and type? - Dr. Jay


I expanded the toxicity paragraph.

This resource only shows that certain tests are not suited for nanotubes it does not invalidate any pubished results which showed nanotube toxicity: [1]

Objections presented below are clarified in the review article which I included which specifically states that controlling for production and metal content does NOT eliminate toxicity.

The best current explanation for these apparently contradictory results is that no two production processes make exactly the same type of CNTs. Some contain measurable levels of impurities such as cobalt and nickel which have documented toxicity and which may be the true causes of the effects. Additionally CNTs have a range of physical and chemical properties (e.g., surface area, zeta potential) that are not often controlled for in toxicology studies.

Link to one source was broken, but it might have been the one I linked as tox5, however if thats the case someone ignored the conclusions presented by the authors.

This paragraph should be sourced with a study which assesses its toxicity:

Buckypaper, for example, which is a mat of carbon nanotubes compressed to a paper-like form, has been used successfully for the growth of various cell types without featuring toxic effects.

All in all although some studies do not detect toxicity many do and their number steadily increases, besides the mechanism of toxicity is pretty obvious from cell biology and immunology point of view.

Finally since peoples health and life is a stake here it is important not to understate the toxicity. Enemyunknown (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotating graphic making me dizzy

Can the rotating molecular structure graphic at least move more slowly?

And is there any way to set it up with a link to click to make it start/stop -- or can there be a still image here that you click to see it animating on the image page?

Katesisco (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)2010 watching toxicity issue for carbon nano and all have issues. New tech so downplay health issue? kateisco

Molecular modeling software for carbon nanotubes

I believe, according to WP standards, this list does not belong to a good wikipedia article, because it goes along with promotion of certain products. I am aware that some of them are non-commercial, but the field (modeling software) is. NIMSoffice (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this is promotion. There is no clear advertising. This is looks like the old links.
Before to return section, I changed external links to internal (where possible) and check the consistence of theme. Only one reference was questionable, and I deleted it.
If the field (modeling software) refer to Further information then
  • Your proposal is to remove it, is not it?
  • Further informationonly gives additional information but does not related directly to the nanotubes. While this section is exactly about such modeling.
Therefore I believe that this section should remain here. Certainly I would like to see here not only links but also the description, but it can make only a specialist in modeling of nanotubes.--P99am (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "should remain here" (where is here) ? Those pages are (i) often too technical - devoted to computer modeling, not to nanotubes, and thus are by no means "further information" for an average reader, whereas an expert who needs them would go to one of those "nanotube links" web sites; (ii) it is hard to separate commercial from non-commercial, because the purpose of many is to attract to their website by any means; (iii) sooner or later commercial websites will fight for place in this list, arguing on discrimination "he is there, but I'm not!". For these reasons, the whole list should not be in the article. The best place for it is "external links" in a page dedicated to molecular modeling and having a section on carbon nanotubes.NIMSoffice (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the modeling of nanotubes was mentioned in the article, or how it was done? I believe that it's well that it was here (in the article) mentioned, but not insist on the method of how it was done. The fact that it was simply erased I do not consider appropriate, and propose to discuss how to do it in better way.
(i) Could you explain this on the example of CoNTub?
(ii) Separation commercial from non-commercial is out of scope of Wikipedia. Do you think that a non-commercial advertising is better one? ;)
(iii) I see this section here for the long time and that has not happened yet. When someone says "he is there, but I'm not!" We'll explain to him what's wrong. No problem.
The section of carbon nanotubes in the molecular modeling may be a good idea, may be not. I do not insist on the form of information (although it seems to me that this article a more appropriate place for it), but I insist on its preserving. I am not an expert in modeling of nanostructures, but for me this section was interesting. I think that I am not a unique person.--P99am (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1) This article should be GA, and it is not because of mess, because information is being excessively dumped in there (thus argument "it was here for long time" only means poor management, and failed GA is a good sign that things are not going well). It must start splitting up into separate pages (e.g., history; modeling is a good candidate for another page). 2) Modeling does not belong here simply because it is nowhere described in the text, and it does not tell (in principle it can, but it doesn't in its present form here) much about the nanotubes - instead it focuses on itself. You example CoNTub is relatively good compared to others, but still, even being a professional scientsist in this field, I only see a technical instruction on how to generate a certain structure, without any information on the structure and its connection to the "real world". In science you would often hear a question about such pictures "is it simulation or speculation ?".NIMSoffice (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "GA"?--P99am (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Assessment#Quality_scale and the top of this talk page. The quality rules applied to GAs should be applied to other articles too, that they are not only reflects there is yet much work to be done ;) Good night. :-O NIMSoffice (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2) I believe that it would be nice to add the relevant section in the article text or the text in this section (or make separate articles). Unfortunately, I can not do it myself. I did what I could - converted the external links. Therefore I propose to retain this section, but ask experts to develop it into the full text. Could you be so kind to write such an invitation, in accordance with the standards in Wiki?--P99am (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Molecular modelling, Molecular graphics, Molecular Design software, List of software for molecular mechanics modeling. This list will certainly suit there better (e.g. Molecular modelling). There could be opposition that it is too specific (carbon nanotubes), but it is not - those programs are usually flexible and allow modeling other structures too. NIMSoffice (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am worried that for these articles this would be too specific. At the same time, there is not enough material for a separate article, but I'd like to keep information. Moreover, the addition of these references in these articles is not relevant to the nanotubes. The idea is not to expand the list of software, but specify the software used for this purpose. Expanding of common lists unnecessary. --P99am (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


In October 2008, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), within the California Environmental Protection Agency, announced its intent to request information regarding analytical test methods, fate and transport in the environment, and other relevant information from manufacturers of carbon nanotubes.[2] The term "manufacturers” includes persons and businesses that produce nanotubes in California, or import carbon nanotubes into California for sale. The purpose of this information request will be to identify information gaps and to develop information about carbon nanotubes, an important emerging nanomaterial.

DTSC is exercising its authority under the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 699, sections 57018-57020.[3] These sections were added as a result of the adoption of Assembly Bill AB 289 (2006). They are intended to make information on the fate and transport, detection and analysis, and other information on chemicals more available. The law places the responsibility to provide this information to the Department on those who manufacture or import the chemicals.

On January 22, 2009, a formal information request letter was sent to manufacturers who produce or import carbon nanotubes in California, or who may export carbon nanotubes into the State. This letter constitutes the first formal implementation of the authorities placed into statute by AB 289 (2006) and is directed to manufacturers of carbon nanotubes, both industry and academia within the State, and to manufacturers outside California who export carbon nanotubes to California. This request for information must be met by the manufacturers within one year.

On June 22, 2009, DTSC will host a roundtable discussion on the carbon nanotube information call-in during the IANANO Nano Biotech Conference. The event will be held at the San Francisco Crown Plaza Hotel, 1177 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. DTSC is providing this opportunity to the carbon nanotube industries who received the January 22, 2009 request letter to discuss their progress.

DTSC is indicating interest in expanding the Specific Chemical Information Call-in to members of the brominated flame retardants, members of the methyl siloxanes, and other nanometal oxides such as aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide. Specifically, DTSC has added Bis(2-ethylhexyl) tetrabromophthlate (TBPH), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5), nano silver, nano zerovalent iron, and cerium oxide to the list of chemicals of interest.

Interested individuals are encouraged to visit their website for the latest up-to-date information at

Application as Fertiliser

I found this article describing the use of nanotubes as fertiliser, figured since I don't see it here you mightn't know about it. Its at this link. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

High-strength, unlimited-length nanowires?

At the end of the introductory paragraphs, right before the contents box, the claim is made that using high pressure nanotubes can be linked together, making high-strength unlimited-length nanowires. This claim needs to be developed and cited. Mathwhiz90601 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Deleted. Yes, they can be linked using high pressure, but high-pressure is not the only way for that, and "unlimited length" is just wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Nano World: Nanotube toxicity exams differ". IBM. Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  2. ^ "Nanotechnology web page". Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2008. 
  3. ^ "Chemical Information Call-In web page". Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2008.