Talk:Ultrahard fullerite

Over my head
Please make this article more clear. Some of it is to tecnical e.g. "Ultrahard fullerite (C60) is a unique version of buckminsterfullerene with three-dimensional polymer bonds. This should not be confused with P-SWNT fullerite, even though that material is also a polymerized version of fullerene."...Err? An some is just confused e.g. "A Type IIa diamond (111) has a hardness value of 167±6 gigapascals (GPa) when scratched with an ultrahard fullerite tip." seems to imply that it has this hardness value only when strached with fullerite, isn't the point of a hardness test to find out what its hardness is in general? The fullerite surely isn't causing it to have a certian hardness? Any way some tec' person please make this article assesssable to laypeople.--JK the unwise 10:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the article was created by someone who is not a subject-matter(ahem) expert. It appears that testing the hardness of the hardest materials is unreliable, so that exact hardness of diamond is only now accurately known because a harder material is now available.

I did some cleanup, which should help a little, but I think it needs a subject-matter expert to do the job right. Accordingly, I have added the tag to this page.

Unless someone can add considerably to this article, it probably should be merged, as is proposed. --Scott McNay 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Claimed hardness is wrong
It is my strong impression that there are no well-established examples of materials harder than diamond. If there were one, scientific excitement would be huge, and within a year of discovery, references would be to a growing literature on methods of synthesis, Young's modulus, bulk modulus, thermal stability, x-ray diffraction, etc., etc. Instead, there is (in this case) several links to something called "nanoscan", and one to an on-line magazine. Googling "ultrahard fullerite" gives this article and mirrors of it the top billing. This topic should be discussed in an article on alleged ultrahard materials and the evidence for them. -- Harold f 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Font
When I first read this article, I thought it was talking about something called "lla" (ell-ell-ay). When I looked at it in the editor, I saw that the letters were a capital "i" (eye). I've added so that it can be seen clearly that this is a capital "i": Might want to do the same in other articles as you come across them. I've seen similar and been similary confused in astronomy articles discussing types of supernova. --Scott McNay 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Before: lIIl
 * After:

""
According to this is not aggregated diamond nanorod (ADNR), so why does this page redirect to that article? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)