Talk:Fullerene

Toys
Bucky balls were popular in the US a few decades back, and they continue to be sold as toys. See [] for example. This should perhaps be a separate page. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1001.1182v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.219.252 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

B80 has Ih symmetry

It should be updated that with more careful electronic structure calculation, B80 has been shown to have the perfect Ih symmetry

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1001.1182v1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.219.252 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not find what i was looking for
I came here looking for the toy Buckyballs... I cant seem to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrospark (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Article protection
This article needs to be protected urgently. Google features bucky balls on the front page. This is the first search result, so spammers cause vandalism. Protection needed at least for one day.--78.190.26.157 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering, is google really refering to fullerene with it's logo ? or is it an homage to the inventor of the architectural design ? this article says google refered to the molecule and the quote for that is a romanian newspaper article that talks about the wikipedia page, I think someone from that romanian newspaper edited the article to say google is refering to the fullerene molecule maybe google is not telling on purpose to find out how people are searching for the logos meaning ? -shodan 67.212.8.232 (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.162.80.211, 4 September 2010
please replace any "discovered" with "synthesized" or "invented"

the term "discovered" applies only to naturally occurring items. 94.162.80.211 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fullerenes occur naturally, and had been produced in space and on earth (in arc discharges, for example) for many decades. Thus Kroto et al. did not not really synthesize them - they, crudely speaking, separated them from a common discharge soot. Process optimization is essential only for the C60 yield. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

4 bondings of C
Hi. Could anyone explain what happens with the 4th Coal bounding? I can see that the coal uses only 3 in the Fullerens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.106.96 (talk • contribs)
 * Carbon forms double bonds in many organic compounds, including fullerene. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an explanation of this in the article as well... I find the levels of complexity of the article mixed. A simple introduction to the chemistry + a sketch of the actual bonds (double/single/aromacity) would be appropriate, I think. I still don't get where the double bonds are, if there are supposed to be three pr six atoms (eg. fullerene sheets of six-membered rings)! 77.212.171.42 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buckminsterfullerene-2D-skeletal.png Simon de Danser (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Buckminsterfullerene-2D-skeletal.png Or to put that another way … —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.164.110.157, 4 September 2010
Add the word 'The' or 'An' in front of the word "Icosahedral" in the sentence:

Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure.

This will make the sentence above gramatically correct.

Corrected versions: The Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure. An Icosahedral C60H60 cage was mentioned in 1965 as a possible topological structure.

71.164.110.157 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the to the start of the sentence. --Stickee (talk)  14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Safety and Toxicity
This part of the article doesn't say much on safety and toxicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.125.215 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
Regarding this revert of mine, there are two issues: (i) combining images of species which have their own, well-developed articles, in the lead of fullerene does clutter it and leaves little space for text. (ii) The common understanding of carbon nanotubes is a rolled graphene sheet, not a fullerene blown into a tube. The relation between C60 and nanotube is only (well, I actually don't know this relation, even after studying them for long), maybe, in the extended pure carbon network. Going ad absurdum, we could add a dozen of chemicals with very similar structures to their leads, which does not seem constructive. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll comment on the second concern first: I'm pretty sure that nanotubes are considered to be fullerenes too. Both this article and Carbon nanotube say that they are, however I noticed that these statements are unsourced.  I don't have a nanotech reference book on me right now; I can probably look it up in the next few days.  If nanotubes are not in fact considered fullerenes, then both of these articles will need to be revised.


 * As far as layout, I thought that showing a single example of each of the major classes of fullerene at the top would greatly clarify the subject to a reader unfamiliar with the field. Using a vertical rather than horizontal layout should reduce clutter/distortion of the lead text. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 03:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that fullerenes are defined such that they include tubular structures, and this is a key point which needs proper, reliable references (not WP itself). In most labs, fullerenes are usually meant as globular structures, but some Britannica definition can beat this. Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, my apologies, please go ahead. Vertical design will push other pictures down too much, thus perhaps horizontal is better, but the right nanotube image was not using its space - I would crop and brighten it or find another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I was thinking the same thing about the nanotube picture, there's probably a better one floating around Commons somewhere.  I'll play around with the layout to get something that's more visually appealing.  Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 04:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"fullerene" vs. "nanotube"?
"Nanobuds have been obtained by adding fullerenes to carbon nanotubes." As far as i can tell from the rest of the article, carbon nanotubes are fullerenes, so that statement makes no sense. Unfortunately, the main article on nanobuds has similar verbiage. Can someone more knowledgeable fix this, or at least leave some comments here? thaks Doceddi (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The terminology is misleading (to me) as most scientists do not mix nanotubes and fullerenes (meaning fullerenes=buckminsterfullerenes). Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"superaromacity"?
The article links the word "superaromacity" to the "aromacity" article... but in the "aromacity" article, superaromacity isen't mentioned! 77.212.171.42 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of reference
the claim "In 2012 it was revealed that oral administration prolonged the lifespan of rats by nearly 100% without showing toxic effects" does not point to any study/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.14 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess this is the relevant article : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142961212003237, of which subsection 3.3 states: "The estimated median lifespan (EML) for the C60-treated rats was 42 months while the EMLs for control rats and olive oil-treated rats were 22 and 26 months, respectively. These are increases of 18 and 90% for the olive-oil and C60-treated rats, respectively, as compared to controls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.235.4 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Properties of PURE fullerenes
What are properties of that allotropes? What is they appearance? Does pure fullerenes have some metallic luster? What about band gap? I saw a book in which there was written that C60 (or C70) has electrical conductivity of 1014 ohm/m (not 1014 ohm/m, which I saw on some pages in Internet) and it has relatively narrow band gap (1,9 eV (in some pages in the Internet there is about 2,3 eV for C60)). Can more nonmetallic elements (especially sulfur) form "fullerenes" or nanotubes or the element or compound must be at least a near-metalloid to form such complex, polyatomic structures? What are boiling, melting and sublimation points of fullerenes (at standard pressure)? Fullerenes look less metallic than diamond, which is NOT so clearly nonmetallic (crystalline structure like Si and Ge, transparency and low electrical conductivity are not only properties of a typical nonmetal, diamond has many metalloidal properties (very high melting, boiling point, extreme hardness and thermal conductivity, very high density), in fact diamond has mixed properties of a metalloid and a nonmetal, both very strongly marked!, it is even "bad metalloid", not a "just nonmetal").

95.49.108.48 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

flatness of graphenes
Of nanotubes:
 * … and relative chemical inactivity (as it is cylindrical and "planar" — that is, it has no "exposed" atoms that can be easily displaced).

As a nanotube has no hidden atoms, all are exposed in the ordinary sense of the word; how about replacing "exposed" with "outermost"? —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

""
The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Fullerene. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.solina.demon.co.uk/c60.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/60618/Anewbuckyballbouncesintotown.aspx
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lunainc.com/technology-development/materials/organic-photovoltaic-technology/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fullerene. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618165649/http://invsee.asu.edu/nmodules/Carbonmod/everywhere.html to http://invsee.asu.edu/nmodules/Carbonmod/everywhere.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628180538/http://worldandi.misto.cz/_MAIL_/article/nsapr99.html to http://worldandi.misto.cz/_MAIL_/article/nsapr99.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Should nanotubes be excluded from article?
Mixing closed fullerenes and nanotubes is cumbersome for editors and confusing to readers, and inflates what would be already rather long article. While they have some properties in common, they have also many differences. It seems that at least some scientists consider "fullerene" to be exclusively the closed kind. Can we take advantage of that controversy to move most of the nanotube stuff to carbon nanotube? Of course we would still note the connection between the two families, the hybrid forms, and the naming controversy. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a non-chemist who thought he'd understood the terminology until he arrived on this article, yes please! On the basis that
 * articles are about concepts anyway, and it's a sensible division
 * the usage does conflict with what I've seen elsewhere
 * if it's not yet entirely standardised, there can easily be a short remark to the effect that the terms are used more than one way, together with a statement of how this article is using them.
 * (See also my previous comment, under Terminology.) Musiconeologist (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved entries to Talk:Fullerene solubility
As part of removing the section "Solubility" to fullerene solubility, I also moved three sections of this talk page to Talk:Fullerene solubility: --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * solubility
 * It is the long experience of pharma
 * Solubility table data - refs and signif figures

Doscovery: Kroto 1985 or Rohlfing 1984?
The "Preparation" section of buckminsterfullerene 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 of that article and this article does not mention that 1984 result. Is that correct? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

rings of length 7
The lead sentence and one other sentence allows rings of length 7, but the IUPAC definition does not allow them. Who allows rings of length 7? A citation is needed. McKay (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Applications
It's hard to know what this section is saying, since the layout and references are completely messed up, and the syntax is very confused, but it seems to be going into excessive detail about cancer treatment (detail that might be appropriate in articles on that subject) without any discussion of further applications if there are any. Some of the confusion seems to have been caused by changes made on 5 Feb 2024 by 106.51.83.72 who appears to be a persistent vandal - I don't know how to revert these edits without losing later genuine contributions. But anyway the section needs to be rewritten by someone who knows about the subject (I don't - that's why I came here in the first place). Newburyjohn (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Terminology
From what I've read so far (disclaimer: not yet any of the refs in this article), fullerene seems to refer only to closed structures like and, not nanotubes or graphene, with buckminsterfullerene referring specifically to  itself. Have I got that wrong? I realise the terminology might not yet be entirely standardise though. Edit: I see I'm not the first to say this. In which case, I think the article should be split. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)