Jump to content

Talk:Graphite/Archive 1

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

Synthetic Graphite

Synthetic Graphite is mentioned a number of times, and there is a section "Uses of Synthetic Graphite", but nowhere is it defined, nor is there any indication how it is made, or what it is made from. There is some info here:

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1630#_Synthetic_Graphite

I think there should be a section on Synthetic Graphite (perhaps just before "Uses of ..."), but I am not knowlegable enough to write it. Just a suggestion for the Graphite experts :-)

Dgwsoft (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it used in old radio antenna's ?

I got some real old radios and i wonder why are their antenna's made of a copper coil around a graphite core ? You dont see this in new radios. I mean i do understand electro-magnetism, an iron core inside a copper coil. Replace iron by graphite and it turns better for antenna's ?. It even makes me even wonder what would other materials do ?. But most of all why graphite ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


That material is not graphite, it is ferrite. Althougt similar in apparence, has very different properties. Ferrite is hard, bad conductor and ferromagnetic. It is used in today's radios, but only for MW or LW bands (not for FM-VHF)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Low_cost_DCF77_receiver.jpg (this is a ferrite antenna for LW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.42.88.118 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the melting point of the Graphite

In one school book I've read it is around 3600 C and it seems kinda very high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Da Vinci (talk • contribs) 06:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is high (probably the highest of all materials), and is strongly pressure dependent - carbon does not melt, but sublimates at ambient pressure. See here for details. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

questions

What temperature does it take to ignite graphite?

Graphite, like diamond, burns in air at 800 degrees Celsius. Bbi5291 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure about that graphite and diamond burn at the same temperature? I don't know the combustion point of diamond or graphite off the top of my head, but since delta G = delta H - T delta S => T = delta H / delta S and diamond has a higher entropy than graphite, diamond should actually burn at a lower temperature than graphite. Browb3aten 02:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference in entropy is only about 4 J mol-1 K-1. So, given that 800 has only one significant digit, I am justified in saying that it is the temperature at which both graphite and diamond will burn in air. Bbi5291 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delta G relates to the thermodynamic states, initial and final, and it affects the equilibrium of a chemical reaction. And you're right, graphite is more stable than diamond at STP. The ignition temperature, however, depends on the activation energy of the reaction (think Boltzmann distribution), and has little to do with Gibbs free energy. So it may very well be that diamond and graphite have similar activation energies for combustion. It's not a question of delta G though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.230.155 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It is still a question of delta G, but not NET delta G. The free energy of the final state of the combustion (carbon dioxide) is irrelevant to the combustion point, but the initial state is still relevant. To determine the amount of heat we would need to put in, we would have to know the difference between the initial free energy and the free energy associated with the transition state. However, thermodynamic data only gets you halfway. It's all well and good to have enough energy for a reaction to occur, but the rate of the reaction (which would have to be relatively high for observable combustion) is a matter of kinetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.87.202 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have another question. What mineral group does graphite belong to? Darth Revan 5873 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Darth Revan 5873

Graphite is not a mineral, it's an elemental allotrope of carbon.

Yet another question: What is the temperature of sublimation? Or melting point, if it has one.

Graphite doesn't melt under atmospheric conditions, neither does it sublimate, it reacts with Oxygen to create CO2 and CO.

What is the electrical capacity of graphite - Amps/cm^2 or something similar? What effects the electrical capacity of graphite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.183.18 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The electrical capacity of graphite completely depends on it's structure, there are considerably different kinds of structures of graphite, do you mean in mineral form? Graphite Foam? Graphene? Be more specific.

Repetition

"Other characteristics: thin flakes are flexible but inelastic, mineral can leave black marks on hands and paper, conducts electricity." This seems rather redundant, especially since it's mentioned at the top that graphite is a conductor. And the comparison between graphite and diamond may not be strictly necessary but it reinforces my point: "Diamond is an excellent electrical insulator, but graphite is a conductor of electricity." How many times must we be told that graphite conducts electricity? Might as well add that voltage applied to a mechanical pencil lead will cause it to go white-hot and throw sparks. I hope my criticism isn't too harsh, but someone with more experience than I should consider reorganizing this page. Thanks.

I can also confirm that it has a bitter taste. User:Artman40 21:26, 6 April 2006 (EET)

Second paragraph too technical

I think the second paragraph should be moved lower, or at least reworded to be a little less technical, some people might stop reading the article if they run into something that is way out of their league. Ideas? Danny Beardsley 08:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

OK - restructured the article, probably needs a bit of tweaking :-) Vsmith 11:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Crystal system?

The crystal system is listed as trigonal, yet on the hexagonal system page, graphite is listed as being of the hexagonal type. Is this just a case where trigonal is a subclassification of hexagonal, or which is correct? MichaelWest 12:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - trigonal --> hexagonal. Vsmith 13:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fire protection Edit

PFP measures can rarely guarantee the total prevention of the spread of fumes. One may mitigate the spread, but that's about it. Even fire sprinklers don't prevent this. I have tested enough such systems to know. Also, in North America, there are fire door types, where the test will not have failed, if the door gaps open a bit so that flame is visible on the unexposed side. This likely has to do with the reason why closures are de-rated compared against the fire-barriers that contain them. In theory, one would not block doors with combustibles that could catch fire from a hot door where there is a fire on the other side.

soot, charcoal

should discuss soot and charcoal, which i believe are mostly graphite...


Neither of them have any appreciable amount of graphite in them, graphite does not form from amorphous carbon (IE: Coal, oil, etc) below a refractory temperature upwards of ~1800°C in inert atmosphere.

Large blocks

Where do large blocks used in reactors come from? 8-?--Light current 11:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Graphite's Edibility

Graphite is definitely edible. This is consistent with the pencil (see Miscellaneous) page which states that graphite can be heavily consumed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisklerkx (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 August 2006
The edibility ref in the pencil article has the context of pencil lead being graphite and not toxic lead. (I removed the senseless heavily bit). On the graphite page the addition of edibility with no context is meaningless. It has no nutritional value - what is the point? Vsmith 18:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That logic is terrible! Once we start removing information just because it has no immediate practical value, Wikipedia will suffer. This is not a guide to healthy eating. Graphite is edible, and that is a fact. -Chrisklerkx
An unencyclopediac fact. Sawdust and sand are edible also along with gobs of other stuff that has no nutritional value or any reason for including in an encyclopedia. Vsmith 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Graphite's edibility is a very important fact and needs to be included, otherwise the article would be incomplete. -Chrisklerkx

See a Material Safety Data Sheet. It's relatively non-poisonous. A slight irritant in case of skin contact, ingestion, of inhalation. Toxic to upper respiratory tract. Graphite may cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea and vomiting. — Yeah, "you can eat it" nicely summarizes all important facts on biological activity, to the highest encyclopedic standards (…not). Taken alone, in its own section even, that's an utterly pointless non-fact. Femto 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An MSDS is very handy when you've been exposed to something, or have questions about the safety of a material. But any substance, in great enough quantities, is toxic in some manner or another.173.50.121.7 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Graphite's ediblity is a very important fact and deserves to be included. --64.88.21.11 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Edibility is defined as anything that is non toxic to humans, not whether it has nutrients. You can get nausea and vomiting from spoiled food

and it is still edible. Therefore graphite is edible.

I came across this discussion through a web search about the edibility of graphite. I second the opinion that if you do not see an immediate use for a piece of information, it does not mean it is of no value for others.77.245.45.2 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pencils

Mentioned in passing in etymology part of introduction, but shouldn't there be a sentence or two in uses section? --Mongreilf 13:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Magnetism

I realize Graphite is non-ferous, but does anyone know if it has got any magnetic or particle-to-particle bonding properties? --Adnankash 15:41, 18 October 2006 (SHPC)

Graphite exhibits diamagnetism, it is repelled by magnetic fields. Very pronounced in pyrolytic graphite, which is quite suitable for levitation demonstrations (see diamagnetism article). Femto 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is pencil "lead" (graphite) attracted by magnets? I just tested this with a neodymium magnet and #2 pencil suspended from a thread, the effect was very noticeable and not diamagnetic. 71.184.246.254 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pencil leads aren't (usually) graphite, but a mix of finely ground graphite and clay. Having just repeated your experiment with a Staedtler HB (about #2) and also found attraction, I can only hypothesise that it's not diamagnetic when in this finely dispersed form. I've also found that only pyrolytic graphite, and not native mineral graphite, demonstrates appreciable diamagnetism. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

This article has so many wikilinks it's approaching parody. Please refrain from linking things like "golf clubs" which are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I'll work on this more later. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reactivity

Does anyone know if graphite is reactive? and by what degree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.92.35 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Graphite is quite unreactive, reacting (under ordinary conditions) with only the most powerful of reagents: fluorine gas, ozone gas, a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids, alkali metals, etc. (at elevated temperatures it reacts with oxygen). Although thermodynamically more stable in diamond, graphite is kinetically faster to react. Bbi5291 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Slightly incorrect, due to the Delta G (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy), at elevated temperatures graphite interacts with oxygen and other reagents as graphites affinity towards atoms like oxygen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.208.245 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Crystalline Structure

I think it should be mentioned as an introduction that carbon exists in crystalline and amorphous forms. Diamond and graphite are two crystalline forms while soot, charcoal, lamp black, coal, etc. are amorphous forms. Amorphous forms do not have a fixed structure. It is because of this fact that, in my opinion, graphite should not be compared with coal or assumed to be a higher grade of coal than anthracite.

--Mohit Shrivastava 07:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to users to add a "line drawing" of a single graphite layer to emphasize the delocalized elements of the basic Graphite structure, something that isn't immediately obvious from the ball and stick representation.

I've modified the image from the Wikipedia Benzene page to look like the following:

File:Line Drawing Graphite Layer.png

Due to being a "derivative" drawing the quality is slightly fuzzy, but good enough. I suppose I could recreate from scratch.

I would like to insert these two line drawings (or something similar) on the Wikipedia Graphite page between the Ball and Stick Drawing and the Side View Model. It is getting a little tight for space. Perhaps I can stack the two drawing formats to save space.

Comments?

I think this would also benefit the Graphene page. Keelec (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is the same image, top and bottom orientation to make it a little more compact... the thumbnail should fit fine between the ball&stick and the side view:

File:Line Drawing Graphite Layer Top Bottom.png

Keelec (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conductivity

Does anyone know the actual conductivities of graphite in the sheet of the plane versus against it? Browb3aten 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stability Question

"Graphite holds the distinction of being the most stable form of solid carbon ever discovered." Wouldn't a diamond be more stable? Isn't a diamond solid carbon? Noelpleon 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stability has to do with chemical structure, Diamonds are not chemicly stable, and slowly (Very very slowly) revert to graphite, thats right in a few thousand years (or is it longer?) your pretty ring will be a pencil.

User:Mike 11:09 9 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.118.103 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely stability depends on temperature & pressure. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the resistivity of graphite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.72 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Animation

In my opinion, it's not a good idea to have a >2MB animation embedded in the article. Might it be better to have a thumbnail and a link instead? Jibjibjib (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Producers

I saw a part of this article whic says "China is usually the top producer of graphite, followed by India and Brazil." But there is no citation. I found another website online, which said something completely different. It said "A dozen countries hold the key position in graphite production. In tonnage, South Korea is the largest producer in the world followed by Austria." I do not know which is right.

I have updated production numbers originating from USGS. They are reliable but incomplete as there is very little coverage of synthetic graphite. If you find good source on that please let us know. I do doubt that South Korea and Austria are major graphite producers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alpha and Beta forms of Graphite - possible mislabeling

Upon checking the references in the first paragraph of the properties section, I could not find any instances of labeling hexagonal graphite alpha form or rhombohedral graphite beta form. Also IUPAC says "natural graphite and laboratory preparations contain less than 40% of rhombohedral graphite in combination with hexagonal graphite". This contradicts whats stated in the article "Natural graphites contain up to 30% of the beta form, when synthetically-produced graphite only contains the alpha form." It is possible since hexagonal graphite is the most abundant form it is given the name alpha but I have yet to find any refence to alpha or beta in any scholarly journals. I also found a perhaps less than reliable page that states that rhombohedral is "alpha form" http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/c/allot_carbon-II.htm I would avoid use the terms alpha and beta graphite and use the common hexagonal graphite and rhombohedral graphite. BTW IUPAC states the hexagonal graphite stacks ABAB while rhombohedral stacks ABCABC - hopefully somebody puts this on the page as its the distinguishing property of these two forms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.232.86 (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Graphite

I suggest that the description of Expanded Graphite is somewhat incomplete. What is described is in fact "Expandable Graphite", which is a form of intercalated graphite. The graphite only becomes "expanded" when it is heated (or, alternatively, microwave treated). Dagurasum (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is expanded graphite pure carbon? In many photos is looks very metallic, bright and shiny. It is really flexible. What it contains? Metals?

79.191.185.122 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Graphine layers and dispersion force

Probably should have some reference to the fact that graphite is layers of graphene and are held together by dispersion bonds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Fletcher (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Syntax

I notice in the article we are using the British English spelling tonnes without denoting the system for the designation. An intelligent, worldly-educated person should be able to determine that the article is referring to metric tons due to the spelling, but is misleading to those who come upon this article who are not so familiar. In the linked report on the USGS website, the amounts referred to are quoted in metric tons. Perhaps we can make allusion to this in the article?173.50.121.7 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Pyrolytic carbon and Pyrolytic graphite is the same?

because in the Graphite article it says its not (" Pyrolytic graphite, and pyrolytic carbon are often confused but are very different materials.)" but Pyrolytic graphite article redirects to Pyrolytic carbon article. I'm confused about that. can anyone shed some light on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comixdude (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphite is definately a metalloid

Because it has very high melting point, looks greyish and has lustre similar to metallic. It is also rather good conductor of heat and electricity. This properties exclude it from nonmetals, but it is (such as black phosphorus and grey selenium) not a metal itself. Metals are ductile and malleable, easily transform to monoatomic cation. Graphite is a metalloid or semimetal. Carbon itself differs too much from nonmetals. Graphite is more stable allotrope than diamond and fullerenes, which are less metallic than graphite. Main (more thermodynamically stable) forms of nonmetals have bad electrical and thermal conductivity, low melting, boiling or sublimation point, does not appear as greyish-black solid with metal-like luster, unlike metalloidal graphite. If selenium is classified as metalloid (sometimes this element from diagonal carbon group is even named as (heavy) metal), carbon and even phosphorus should be also.

Graphite can be named as "grey carbon", "metallic carbon". It is analogous to grey selenium and black phosphorus. In many sorces only metalloidal properties of selenium are mearked, but carbon is referred only as nonmetal. It is wrong.

Graphite has abnormally high sublimation or melting point for a "nonmetallic" substance (such as more nonmetallic diamond).

What are flexible graphite, graphite foil, expanded graphite? Is graphite elastic like metals in this form? In many photographies in the Internet graphite looks rather greyish and metallic.

I think that division of nonmetallic elements to semimetalloids, (typical) nonmetals and noble gases (helium group elements, HGE) is better than currenly used division to polyatomic nonmetals, diatomic nonmetals and noble gases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.94.63 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Atomic spacing

The value on this page for the atomic spacing in carbon, 0.142 nm, appears to be correct. However, the source provided gives it as 0.246 nm. The value should be given a correct source or changed to reflect its current source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.118.149 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison w/ diamond

I've removed a rather pointless and unsourced comparison of graphite and diamond from the lead section. Perhaps such a comparison section could be added to the article with some WP:RS in support. Thoughts? Vsmith (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If added it could be done in a much more concise manner in a single sentence. Personal attack removed Mikenorton (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to see this section [1] re-added. It was re-added yesterday (in a poorer unlinked and still unsourced form) and I removed it again, see User talk:Andy Dingley#You have serious personal issues. The problem is that I like the purpose of the section, I like the size of it and the bullet points covered, but this is a vital article on a well-documented topic and so there is just no excuse for bringing in big slabs of wholly unsourced and somewhat subjective content. I also have some concerns over details of the wording. I would like to see this section, but it needs to be a better section. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Note there is already very similar material at Carbon#Characteristics (table, partly referenced) and Allotropes of carbon#Variability of carbon (list, unreferenced), which are IMO better places for it than here or Diamond, as those articles already cover both substances.—Odysseus1479 09:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
So how about some sort of section hatnote to that comparison? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

n mesh?

The expression "n mesh", i.e. 8 mesh, 20-50 mesh etc. is used at some point in the article but not explained. I suppose it's a method for characterizing the quality of the mineral, most probably in relation with the average flak size. It'd be nice to have a explanation somewhere.--Grondilu (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Graphite. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 06:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Original link is dead, but I’ve verified that the archived text supports the statement in the article.—Odysseus1479 05:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Graphite/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs inline citations and more references. John Carter 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graphite/Archive_1&oldid=1090560268"