Talk:Buckminsterfullerene

Emerging Developments

FYI to anyone editing this page- Wired released an article today which suggests that buckministerfullerene is no longer the largest particle to exhibit wave-particle duality. I'd want a better source though before I go changing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.7.132 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think the picture of buckmisterfullerene in benzene should be removed because it's completely useless. It looks no different than colored water in a beaker, and adds no value to this page

Manufacturing

How is buckminsterfullerene manufactured/created? ~~

Name

Is it Buckminster-fullerene or Buckminsterfullerene? 87.224.36.90 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is written as one unhyphenated word, buckminsterfullerene. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share your source/authority for this format & capitalization?
--Wikidity (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Description

"... carbon atom at each vertex" ; Although this style of illustration is a useful convention of long standing, & uncontroversial, I am fairly confident that the 'bond' or 'interaction field' between the atoms is by most understanding, larger, and reaches out further from the vacuum centroid of the molecule, than the atoms at the vertices of their bonds. I believe that if visualized by VHR FM, most Buckminsterfullerene (like most Fullerenes/Bucky-balls and tubes) would look like grossly over-stuffed upholstered structures, with the atoms(upholstery buttons) deeply embedded in the 'poofy' projecting bond structure fields.
--Wikidity (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated Pentagon Rule

Is the argument on Commons:File talk:Buckminsterfullerene-2D-skeletal.png really valid? --Leyo 13:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I left a reply there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Leyo 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No javascript

The table on this page is broken on firefox with noscript. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.187.22 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a problem with the Chembox template and technically not specific to the Buckminsterfullerene page, although the fact the chemical formula of Buckminmsterfullerene is so complex does form part of the reason the problem occurs on this page. Even with Javascript enabled, if the SMILES or InChI entry [show] links are clicked on any page where the chemical formula is sufficiently complex, the same problem rears its head: The table/template becomes unmanageably wide. 82.219.197.3 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure?

The structure including C-C distance, pyramidalization, C-C-C angles, and packing, pretty basic stuff, is missing. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on living organisms

I don't know how much information is available, but if there is any, I think it would be a useful addition. Surely there must be at least some basic information on acute toxicity; someone must have studied that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's this forum discussion on C60's effects on humans: http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/57492-c60-experiments-home/ and this article seems interesting: http://extremelongevity.net/2012/04/16/chronic-buckyball-administration-doubles-rat-lifespan/. However, I haven't had the patience to do in-depth reading to what the state of affairs is here, and the only seemingly credible paper on the subject is this: http://extremelongevity.net/wp-content/uploads/C60-Fullerene.pdf

Hopefully, this paper trail will inspire somebody to do better digging.

TheJackal (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrated fullerene scam

@Materialscientist: The hydrated fullerene section was recently removed by an IP editor as a scam and then restored. There is certainly an alleged scam going on, see this gsearch. There are no homeopathic claims being made in our article, but I think it is a little uncomfortable that all the references (except one dead link) are authored by the alleged scammer. I really don't know much about this subject, but it needs looking at by someone who does. An independent reference verifying that the substance actually exists would be a good start. SpinningSpark 10:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like hype or at least WP:UNDUE: the same authors on several papers in mainly narrow journals. I would remove it. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy is not an issue here (many valid chemicals have been abused in this sense). The question is whether there is an independent confirmation of the hydrated complex, not by Andrievsky or his collaborators. Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a cpouple of indipendent papers (10.1016/j.carbon.2003.12.053 and 10.1021/es048099n) As well as a section in a review paper (10.1021/cr3005026). It also has a CAS no of 209343-51-1 (for C₆₀ . x H₂O). Project Osprey (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New image

A recent open-access paper in Nature Communications discusses the growth of Buckminsterfullerene and gives some related measurements. I've uploaded one of the figures to Commons in case it is useful for this or a related article, but I'll leave that decision to the article's contributors.

Bommel, S.; Kleppmann, N.; Weber, C.; Spranger, H.; Schäfer, P.; Novak, J.; Roth, S.V.; Schreiber, F.; Klapp, S.H.L.; Kowarik, S. (5 November 2014). "Unravelling the multilayer growth of the fullerene C60 in real time". Nature Communications. 5: 5388. doi:10.1038/ncomms6388.

MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckyballs in Carbon Capture

Science Daily posted an article out of Rice University on C-20's ability to aid in carbon capture. I'm not sure how relevant that is or if the source is good enough because chemistry is really not my field. It sounds promising, though, so can someone more knowledgable check it out and add it if it deserves adding? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Buckyball"

The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Citation

At the bottom of the history section, under 'Emerging Developments', I find citations 26 and 27 in particular highly dubious. While claiming a combination of buckminsterfullerene and olive oil increased rat lifespans, it also links to a site selling $45 bottles of the self-same oil. This is tantamount to advertising and doesn't really belong on wikipedia, even if it is true. Needless to say, I doubt the veracity of the citation in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8202:505F:55D0:FD8C:6D3B:EEC3 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of criticism of Moussa's paper and methods on the internet (see [1] for instance), some going as far as accussing him of a scam. Against that, there are papers, perhaps with less spectacular claims, [2][3], from researchers apparently not connected to Moussa or his associates. In my opinion, we shouldn't leave it in without at least mentioning some of the criticism. SpinningSpark 18:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buckminsterfullerene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melting point

I removed "sublimates at ~ 600 K" from the melting point field because it's really misplaced. This is neither a melting point nor a sublimation point. If C60 has a melting point at standard pressure (and standard pressure is always implied if you don't say otherwise), then it's higher, I think that's obvious. It C60 doesn't have a melting point at standard pressure it might have a sublimation point (it might not have an observable sublimation point if too rapid decomposition happens at too low a temperature), then that is, by definition, the temperature at which the vapor pressure of C60 reaches 1 atmosphere. The 600 K probably were a reference to the temperature at which sublimation of C60 in some laboratory setting becomes observable. This is obviously not some special temperature because it depends on the equipment of the laboratory. Vapor pressure is far below 1 atmosphere at that point. I searched for a citation-worthy reference and provided values for the vapor pressure at 2 temperatures. Icek~enwiki (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kroto 1985 or Rohlfing 1984?

The "Preparation" section says "It was first generated in 1984 by Eric Rohlfing, Donald Cox and Andrew Kaldor[2][3] using a laser to vaporize carbon in a supersonic helium beam. In 1985 their work was repeated by Harold Kroto, James R. Heath, Sean O'Brien, Robert Curl, and Richard Smalley at Rice University, who recognized the structure of C60 as buckminsterfullerine[sic]". But the "History" section does not mention that 1984 result. Is that correct? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Football or soccer ball?

An anonymous editor or editors from various Swedish IP's have been edit-warring over how to describe the molecular structure for two or three days now. The first revision of this article that was not a redirect described the structure as a soccer ball. I believe that "soccer ball" is unambiguous in many varieties of English. All soccer balls are footballs, but not all footballs are soccer balls. Before turning this into a candidate for one of the lamest edit wars ever, I'd like to see a few comments. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

37492 publications, reports, patents and counting (11/2019)

According to Chemical Abstracts, C₆₀ is the subject of 37492 publications, 15705 have been published in the past 10 years. It looks to be about 3-5 reports per day (a measly 900 papers appeared in 2019). We are firmly into WP:SECONDARY and more realistically WP:TERTIARY territory!--Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Richard Smalley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 mistakes in article

In the introduction, it said each carbon atom made 2 sigma bonds but I think it actually made 3. Also, the caption under the picture with the magnetic balls says it's demonstrating the carbon atoms. Actually, it's the same number of magnetic balls but they're not in the same arrangement as the carbon atoms in a buckyball. The one made of magnets has triangular and square faces but not hexagonal faces. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in History section

History section needs cleanup. Paragraphs 3+4 are rewording (longer) version of first paragraph. Paragraph three (discovered 1985) contradicts first paragraph (generated in 1984). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbax (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CS
₂ and aromaticity

“Fullerenes are sparingly soluble in aromatic solvents such as toluene and carbon disulfide”. The quoted text looks like it says carbon disulfide is aromatic as well, but it isn’t. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Smokefoot (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Properties"

"theoretically every object exhibits this behaviour"

This is directly contradicted by Wave-particle duality#Wave nature of large objects ("theoretically unclear").

Which article is false? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile"making section" 2407:5200:400:9C0B:E9F2:2310:869A:CE52 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]