Talk:Carbon nanobud
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Untitled[edit]
- If the article is going to talk this much about carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, there should be some sort of explanation of what those are without forcing readers to jump to another page.
- What is a "randomly oriented nanobud film"?
- What is a "relatively low 'kick off' voltage"?
- What is "field emission of electrons"?
The technical stuff shouldn't be dumbed down; it's just that more non-technical stuff should be added to give the article some context for the average reader. Kafziel Talk 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
David P Brown[edit]
David P Brown both made the article and is an author on the paper that is cited in the article. He has extensively edited the article, including adding information & pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.3.205 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"fullerene" vs. "nanotube"?[edit]
There is some terminological confusion going on here; according to the article on fullerenes, nanotubes are a type of fullerene. Hence it is devoid of information to say that nanobuds are a combo of tubes and fullerenes.
Unfortunately, this usage is found in the cited article already, so as an amateur, i'm unsure how to correct the problem. Could an expert clean this up please?Doceddi (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- thanks! from my reading of the cited article, i think what they mean are "spherical fullerenes" -- would it be more precise to replace the term buckminsterfullerenes (which refers specifically to C60, right?) with buckyballs? i ask because buckminsterfullerenes links to fullerenes, and so the confusion continues .. Doceddi (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)