Talk:Carbide-derived carbon

[Untitled]
Hello, this article is still a work in progress as part of a communication assignment for a college English class. For the moment I only describe the use of Tunable Nanoporous Carbon but plan on expanding on some of the other uses described in the introduction as time progresses. I also look forward to constructive criticism from others and will greatly accept corrective editing. -kt57-

Hi, I've been trying to rewrite the article to not sound like an advertisement and could really use some help. Yesterday I made some edits that I thought removed that from the article, but I guess not well enough. I understand the commercialization section probably still makes it appear to be an advertisement but I do not know of any other companies currently using the same technique and I feel that the information is somewhat important to add to the article. Revisions or comments and advice here or on my talk page would be very much appreciated because I want it to avoid looking like an advertisement. Kt57 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Chlorine treatment of "acetylides"
The article mentions the possibility to produce CDC from chlorine treatment of acetylides such as CaC2, and this really seems to have been done succesfully according to some scientific papers I found. However, the synthesis of dichloroacetylene is also described to be possible from CaC2 + Cl2 in other sources. So in a CDC process starting from such carbides, the accidental production of C2Cl2 must somehow be prevented - otherwise it could explode upon condensation in colder parts of the setup and cause destruction. In addition the byproducts (like CaCl2, BaCl2 or LiCl) are not particularly volatile, so one has to go to very high temperatures to vaporize them, which AFAIK is necessary for a successful reaction.

...What I want to say is, can these acetylide-type carbides of alkaline and alkaline earth metals really be considered suitable for CDC processes with chlorine? SiC and TiC, for example, appear to be far more suitable since they don't have the problems described above... --79.243.226.153 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)