Talk:Perovskite

Merge Calcium titanium oxide with this article
Calcium titanate is the more common name, calcium titanium oxide should be a redirect. --Axiosaurus (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above plus the following: perovskite (mineral) should be a separate mineral article and not redirected to Calcium titanate, and the current perovskite article be renamed to perovskite (mineral class). Garybrennan (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all these have now been done, more or less... --Steve (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are not calcium titanate and perovskite two wholly different compounds, structurally? Calcium titanate would be a salt of "titanic acid" and perovskite the specific compound in which a titanium(iv)-ion fills the octahedral void created by the oxide-ions. The Calcium ions occur at each corner of the body-centered cubic crystal. It is definitely possible I'm confused; feel free to rebuke me. Tserton (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsplit
Seems like there was a move to break this tiny article into two even-smaller pieces, one for the chemical CaTiO3 and one for the mineral CaTiO3. This seems pretty silly to me. CaTiO3 is CaTiO3. If it were two articles, they would have overwhelming overlap--i.e., practically everything there is to say about CaTiO3 would be relevant to both articles. So I put the article back together. Any thoughts?

Of course, the mineralbox and chembox should be combined, but I don't know the syntax for either. --Steve (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Restored the two articles as the chemical compound and uses are distinct from natural minerals. The two should be separate as is the norm for Wikipedia mineral and chemical articles. Please discuss prior to reverting against Wikipedia norms even if it seems "silly" to you. Vsmith (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually thought the reverse was the norm, but looking around more I see you're correct. Sorry! --Steve (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

November 2011 additions
Prepared by M.M.Alam for the course GEOL 3370, Dr. Jonathan Snow University of Houston 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstonians (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Supurious Solar Claims
The perovskite solar claims are misleading. Although the referenced material is of a high calibre the way the results have been portrayed in this article are misleading. The PCE efficiency of 15% quoted for perovskite solar is a peak research cell PCE not an average commercial module PCE as quoted for silicon and is an as yet uncertified result (i.e. by NREL or other certification body) for 101mW/cm2 rather than the standard 100. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff%28rev130923%29a.jpg for comparison of various PCEs measured at standard conditions. This section of the article "because perovskites can achieve 15 per cent efficiencies (as opposed to 10 for typical commercial silicon solar cells)" should be dropped and the "can be produced" changed to a "could be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.53.221 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Photovoltaics does not belong on this page
The photovoltaic material is a lead methyl halide compound that has the perovskite structure. It is not CaTiO3 and therefore I believe any references to this material should either be on the Perovskite (crystal structure) page or a new perovskite (photovoltaic) page. 184.100.140.188 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, moving. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The photovoltaics stuff is still there, where should it be moved?IgnacioPickering (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I think a reasonable number of people who land on this page may be interested in the photovoltaic side, so I've added a couple of quick links 89.37.69.41 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Atindite
I'm not able to follow the reference and a quick web search didn't come up with any non-wiki references. I'm thinking this is a simple misspelling, but of what, I'm not clear. --Wcoole (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Right -- 'atindite' is a misspelling of 'etindite':


 * The rocks [on Mount Etinde in Cameroon] are all highly alkaline, contain little or no olivine and there are no basalts or basanites in the sequence. The rock name 'etindite’ was given by Lacroix (1923) to a lava with titanaugite and nepheline phenocrysts in a matrix of nepheline, titanaugite, leucite, magnetite, apatite, perovskite and calcite.

(Epikoros (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)).

Calcium Perovskite
I made this change in our mantle article. Is Calcium Perovskite the same as Perovskite? I would like to see the wikilink bring readers to the right place. It wasn't easy to answer from a simple google. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Never mind, this has been dealt with. See  and .  --David Tornheim (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation
There is no aɪ in Russian language and stress is on i. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"Perovskites" vs Perovskite (CaTiO3)
This article reads fine until the section "Physical Properties". The last two sections talk about minerals with the general perovskite structure, and not about Perovskite itself. These sections should be moved. IgnacioPickering (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved "layered perovskites" into the perovskite_(structure) article. I propose to change the name of this article to "Perovskite (mineral)" in order to avoid what seems to be widespread confusion. IgnacioPickering (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

History of structure determination
In the present version of the article, the first description of the perovskite is attributed to Victor Goldschmidt and cites his work "Die Gesetze der Krystallochemie" (1926). Here, Goldschmidt writes "Diese Struktur wurde zuerst von T. Barth bei Perowskit, Natruim-niobat, und Dysanalyt [Mischkristall] beschrieben." That is, Goldschmidt attributes the description of the perovskite crystal structure to T. Barth, but does not present a citation.

A memorial to Thomas F.W. Barth was written in the Geological Society of America including a detailed bibliographic timeline of Barth's work which gives "Die Kristallstruktur von Perowskit und Verwandten Verbindungen: Norsk Geol. Tidsskr. 8, p. 201-216." and can be found here. Barth traces the development as late as 1912 to O.B. Boggild, who examined periovskite crystals using optical crystallography, but cites no X-ray crystallography in the intervening years.

Clearly Barth and Goldschmidt were close collaborators for some time, yet it seems the attribution of the first X-ray structure determination of perovskite belongs to Barth, not Goldschmidt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PendulousPangolin (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)