|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
I think this should be merged with amorphous carbon, or a subsection added in that article. It should also be noted that "glass" is misplaced here: the material is not cooled form a carbon melt.--Joel 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But glassy carbon is not amorphous. This from IUPAC: "Glass-like carbon cannot be described as amorphous carbon because it consists of two-dimensional structural elements and does not exhibit ‘dangling’ bonds." .--Scsharip 9 Jan 2006
Glassy carbon, Carbon nanotubes, and Fullerenes should all be kept seperate from amorphous carbon. Instead of merging articles, why don't we work on getting pictures so we can know the appearance of the substance? --Ruff 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I just added a link to another supplier - is that frowned upon?
Wikipedia is for all valid science even when IUPAC fails to define it. Glass and Glassy are two different words. Glassy need not be cooled from a melt or even a glass at all. It must simply be Glass like or Glassy. The Fullerenic carbon we call glassy carbon is not a glass and certainly not amorphous. The well defined molecular order including semispheres of C60 and C72 like walls demonstrate a fullerene like order throughout. When IUPAC catches up to the rest of us, they too will call it fullerenic. links to anyone prividing valuable technical or descriptive information on their web site is always good.
Contradictory statements in Production
First paragraph: "It was first produced by workers at the laboratories of The General Electric Company, UK, in the early 1960s,"
Second paragraph: "It was first produced in the laboratories of The Carborundum Company, Trafford Park, Manchester, UK, in the mid 1950's by Bernard Redfern (BR)"
As I remember, Bernard Redfern left the Carborundum company for the Plessey Company; the Plessey Company was bought by the General Electric Company, GEC, in 1989 and this form of carbon then became part of GEC history. There is no conflict that except of perception. GEC may legitimately perceive that this material was produced by "its" employees in the 1960's.
The phenomenon of carbonization was first observed and recognized as having industrial potential during 1953 and subsequently, in the same mid 1950's period, the first crucibles were produced. Bernard Redfern left Carborundum. Whilst working on a Radar related project for Plessey he received request to copy a carbon crucible and recognized it as one he had made whilst at Carborundum. Then Plessey began its exploitation of the material. C. B. Redfern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to rename/move the page
In my opinion, the page should be moved to the name as recommended by IUPAC, i.e., from "glassy carbon" to "glass-like carbon" or similar. As the article explains, "the names glassy carbon and vitreous carbon have been introduced as trademarks; therefore, IUPAC does not recommend their use as technical terms." Best regards, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree - and within the article, 'glassy carbon' should be changed to 'glass-like carbon'--220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- While it is convenient to have nomenclature usage coincide with practices recommended by IUPAC, it is hardly persuasive. Anyway, most people call this stuff glassy carbon. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What is electrical and thermal conductivity of pure glassy carbon? Probably much higher than many pure metalloids at normal conditions (especially B nd Si). What is its color, transprency and luster? What is melting,(sublimation) and boiling point? Probably it is solid above 3000 C, such as diamond and graphite, which is defintely not a trait of nonmetallic elemental substance (but metalloidal or metallic). Diamond is far much more similar to aluminium oxide than to any nonmetallic elemental substance.
In my opinion this material is not nonmetallic, but a typical metalloid (much harder than graphite (7 Mohs)), one of metallic forms of carbon. If selenium is classified as metalloid, carbon and phosphorus have to be also. I am irritating when I see periodic table in which selenium is classified as metalloid and carbon and phosphorus only as nonmetals. Metallicity of C, P and Se is rather the same. P has lower electronegativity from C and Se, but it is more rarely named as metalloid than Se and C. Iodine has also some metallic (metalloidal) traits, especially appearance. C, P, Se, I (and Rn) are in "diagonal carbon group" - group of elements intermediate between metalloids and nonmetals, I is a bit less metallic than three previous elements, Rn is the most nonmetallic, but along with H and P has lower electronegtivity than some heavy metals (such as gold).
File:Glassy carbon and a 1cm3 graphite cube HP68-79.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Glassy carbon and a 1cm3 graphite cube HP68-79.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 25, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
|Picture of the day|
Glassy carbon is a non-graphitizing, or nongraphitizable, carbon which combines glassy and ceramic properties with those of graphite. The most important properties are high temperature resistance, hardness (7 Mohs), low density, low electrical resistance, low friction, low thermal resistance, extreme resistance to chemical attack and impermeability to gases and liquids. Glassy carbon is widely used as an electrode material in electrochemistry, as well as for high temperature crucibles and as a component of some prosthetic devices, and can be fabricated as different shapes, sizes and sections.
When somebody who doesn't already know begins to read this article, it's easy to wonder if the article isn't about anthracite. Could there be an explanation of the difference (or at least a distinction struck)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)