Talk:Super black

Nail polish

The claim that super black is used in nail polish seems to be bogus. At least the link provided leads to the site of a company "Super Black", but I couldn't find any reference to the color/material Super Black used in the nail polish. Also it wouldn't make much sense. 82.82.69.225 (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This would appear to be nonsense -what does resistant mean in this context? A quick google search showed nothing specific. --Cje 21:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad - after I tried "colour" instead of "color" I found the NPL article. Removed the nonsense tag and rewrote article instead. --Cje 14:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vantablack

Consider merging these materials so that the several super-black materials can be covered and compared in a single article. Roches (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I support the idea to merge them all in an Super-black materials (or some similar title) article WillemienH (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the UK lab first invented a black material that wasn't nanotube-based, covered here. NASA then developed an even less reflective material, covered in this article, based on nanotubes. Then the UK lab developed a nanotube-based material of their own, one which has certain advantages; that was at Vantablack. I thought that merging Vantablack into this article would make it easier to summarize the development process and the advantages and disadvantages of each method. If "super black" then becomes an inappropriate title, the title can be changed to "Superblack material" or whatever is found best. Last thing -- how much do these cost? Are there any consumer applications — solar heating, maybe — and are there any exhibits of Vantablack art outside the UK? Roches (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think at the moment this material is not available for the cunsumer market at all (the organisation that produces it ( http://www.surreynanosystems.com/ ) doesn't even give a price list), so i think it is still to expensive for everything but high-value professional use and depending of the price it will get usefull or not, (for solar panels I guess it will be some small persentage more efficient, but is it economicly viable? WillemienH (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Both are completely different products with different origins, hence separately notable. Even if they are to be aggregated it cant be into another brand but into a generic article. AshLin (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per AshLin. Each product/substance is individually notable and should be covered in separate articles. The technologies are not even related, one is based on carbon nanotubes and the other involves etched metals. However that does not preclude the creation of an article that covers "super black" materials in the broader generic sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per the reasons given in the previous two comments. An "umbrella" or overview article might make sense at some point. Reify-tech (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd support the proposal for a combined article covering super low reflection surface treatments (or at least create a combined page for those that are nanotube based). This is a developing field. The potential applications are not really specific to one technology and in general it is better for Wikipedia when pages cover the subject from a generic point of view rather than focussing on a particular company's product line as it preserves the character of an encyclopedia rather than a collection of brochures.51.9.83.122 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge and expand to cover these and other extremely black materials such as this and this and this. A section on each seems more like the right weight than an article on each, and will make it easier to compare, track progress, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Super black. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140302004316/https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/417149 to https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/417149

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)