Talk:Glassy carbon

message: I think this should be merged with amorphous carbon, or a subsection added in that article.  It should also be noted that "glass" is misplaced here: the material is not cooled form a carbon melt.--Joel 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: First paragraph:  "It was first produced by workers at the laboratories of The General Electric Company, UK, in the early 1960s,"
Second paragraph: "It was first produced in the laboratories of The Carborundum Company, Trafford Park, Manchester, UK, in the mid 1950's by Bernard Redfern (BR)"
huh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.25.28 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statements in Production 

message: In my opinion, the page should be moved to the name as recommended by IUPAC, i.e., from "glassy carbon" to "glass-like carbon" or similar.  As the article explains, "the names glassy carbon and vitreous carbon have been introduced as trademarks; therefore, IUPAC does not recommend their use as technical terms."  Best regards,  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - and within the article, 'glassy carbon' should be changed to 'glass-like carbon'--74.38.72.190 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: While it is convenient to have nomenclature usage coincide with practices recommended by IUPAC, it is hardly persuasive.  Anyway, most people call this stuff glassy carbon.  --Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename/move the page 

message: What is electrical and thermal conductivity of pure glassy carbon? Probably much higher than many pure metalloids at normal conditions (especially B nd Si). What is its color, transprency and luster? What is melting,(sublimation) and boiling point? Probably it is solid above 3000 C, such as diamond and graphite, which is defintely not a trait of nonmetallic elemental substance (but metalloidal or metallic). Diamond is far much more similar to aluminium oxide than to any nonmetallic elemental substance. 
In my opinion this material is not nonmetallic, but a typical metalloid (much harder than graphite (7 Mohs)), one of metallic forms of carbon. If selenium is classified as metalloid, carbon and phosphorus have to be also. I am irritating when I see periodic table in which selenium is classified as metalloid and carbon and phosphorus only as nonmetals. Metallicity of C, P and Se is rather the same. P has lower electronegativity from C and Se, but it is more rarely named as metalloid than Se and C. Iodine has also some metallic (metalloidal) traits, especially appearance. C, P, Se, I (and Rn) are in "diagonal carbon group" - group of elements intermediate between metalloids and nonmetals, I is a bit less metallic than three previous elements, Rn is the most nonmetallic, but along with H and P has lower electronegtivity than some heavy metals (such as gold).
83.31.150.149 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Properties

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Glassy carbon and a 1cm3 graphite cube HP68-79.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 25, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Glassy carbon and a 1cm3 graphite cube HP68-79.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: When somebody who doesn't already know begins to read this article, it's easy to wonder if the article isn't about anthracite.  Could there be an explanation of the difference (or at least a distinction struck)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction 

message: the "History" section is marked as requiring sources.
actually the "historical review of glassy carbon" paper that is linked to since rev 1050516560 should provide sources for all of the history.
i found the opening paragraph describing the discovery rather confusing, and improved+sourced it with material from that paper,
it should provide lots of material for further improving the article, if somebody does the work of extracting it. 77.22.192.238 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  improving "History"