Talk:Allotropes of boron

Gamma in 1965
Page 3 last sentence of first paragraph in Zarechnaya 2008 reads "Thus, we confirm the existence of the pure boron phase first reported by Wentorf [11]." This reads to me as a definite confirmation of the gamma form in 1965. I have repeatedly tried to make this edit on the content at the currently exisiting Gamma boron discovery controversy. While an editor may disagree because of their scientific knowledge or POV, wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Am I interpreting the quoted text wrong? -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Zarechnaya 2008 is a peculiar article. You correctly quote a phrase from the middle of the paper (which is read by only few). Now look at what the abstract says (and this is what goes in all literature databases and read by many):


 * If you look at history of the Boron page, you will see that on 29 January 2009 (one day after this paper was published!) NIMSOffice wrote that Zarechnaya discovered a new phase of boron (NIMSOffice did not mention Wentorf, whom he now defends so feverishly). I find all this very strange.
 * Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.210.52 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears Zarechnaya only then claims novelty on the description of the phase, and not the synthesis. To digress: your sentence that starts with "If you look..." doesn't help us improve the quality of this page, in my opinion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What about other numerous boron modificazions?
I read that there are 16 polymorphous reported modificazions of boron (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), or even several dozens (Zarechnaya et al., Phys.Rev.Letters 2009). What is the real number of polymorphous modificazions and why they are not described in this Wikipedia article? It is hard to believe in several dozens, this would be more than for any other element (even more than phosforus). But of course, each element is different. 79.164.124.169 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User Materialscientist should not be deleting references without reasons
I inserted references to the latest papers, which I found useful and sure that others will find them useful too. User Materialscientist deleted them without explaining why. This indicates he has not read the papers I refer to, or has the conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Each piece of knowledge is precious. Deleting knowledge as Materialscientist does it, without reasons, helps nothing. If I found these references useful, other readers will find them useful too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See talk:Boron. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

adding references
I cited several recent papers that I found useful, but the Materialscientist user deleted them for apparently some of his personal reasons. I spent a bit too much time trying to restore these references and he just deleted them back. I don't want to do this forever. In fact, I don't want to help Wikipedia any more if destructive people like Materialscientist can do here what they want and noone stop their acts. For now I restored text damaged by Materialscientist and below are the short explanation of what's interesting in these papers. Click on the online links below to see papers abstracts. So I recommend the community to consider including these references.

I suggest to add the reference to:

Discovery and studies of boron encountered many complications due to its unique electron-deficient chemistry {Oganov, A.R., Solozhenko, V.L. Boron: a hunt for superhard polymorphs. Journal of Superhard Materials, vol. 31, 285-291 (2009). http://www.springerlink.com/content/fv826k1718673661/}

Then I recommend a special issue (http://www.springerlink.com/content/1063-4576/33/6/) dedicated to boron with following leading expert articles:

A critical reappraisal of the structure, bonding, compressibility and hardness properties of gamma-B28 phase is given in: The high-pressure phase of boron, γ-B28: Disputes and conclusions of 5 years after discovery. A. R. Oganov, V. L. Solozhenko, C. Gatti, O. O. Kurakevych and Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 380-387 (2011). Careful analysis confirmed large charge separation (Oganov et al., Nature, 2009) between boron atoms in gamma-B28: On the nature of chemical bonding in γ-boron. P. Macchi. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 388-393 (2011). Comparative review of theoretical and experimental equations of state of orthorhombic boron γ-B28. Y. Le Godec. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 394-400 (2011). gamma-B28 has an unusual electronic structure: Spectral analysis of the electronic structure of γ-B28. P. Rulis, L. Wang, B. Walker and W.-Y. Ching. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 401-408 (2011). gamma-B28 superhardness is confirmed by theory studies: Large shear strength enhancement of gamma-boron by normal compression. X.-F. Zhou, Y. Tian and H.-T. Wang. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 409-420 (2011); Mechanical properties and hardness of boron and boron-rich solids. S. Veprek, R. F. Zhang and A. S. Argon. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011). Boron rich solids are frequently structurally similar to element boron and also supehard: Experimental study and critical review of structural, thermodynamic and mechanical properties of superhard refractory boron suboxide B6O. O. O. Kurakevych and V. L. Solozhenko. Journal of Superhard Materials, volume 33, 421-428 (2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

planar and cages
borophene and borospherene should be added -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)